by minkwe » Sun Aug 02, 2015 10:00 am
DanielLBurnstein wrote:I show that they are violated by both local hidden theories and QM rendering them useless.
Daniel,
If you believe Bell's inequality is violated by QM and a LHV theory, back it up
by providing ,
the predictions for the terms 
which you claim violate it. That's the starting point, if you insist on talking about "violation of Bell's inequality", it is hard to discuss without that.
You use statistical analysis of the data, I use strictly causal physics. Though I believe Bell's theorem does not correctly generalizes hidden variable theories, I show using the physics of Bell experiments that both LHV theories and QM will inevitably violate Bell's inequality thus Bell's inequality does not truly discriminate between them.
I don't think you have fully appreciated it. Did you read any of the posts I referenced earlier? We've shown that the inequalities do not apply to the experiments at all. So if you believe they apply to LHV theories, you will have to explain in what way. Again, the starting point of that discussion is to provide the predictions you claim violate it.
"[...] by simply assuming that a detector does not detect electrons having spins relative to an axis, but rather only discriminates between ranges of spin angles, we can derive an inequality which predictions are in agreement with Bell experiments and are thus indistinguishable from the predictions of quantum mechanics for the same experiments. Hence, Bell’s generalization of hidden variables and the inequality derived form is not to be taken as a constraint of the predictions of local realistic theories. "
Your conclusion does not seem to me at odds with my point of view. Though not having read the details of your approach, I can not vouch for its cogency. But you are the one insisting that my point of view is somehow handicapped by certain Bell assumptions, and I'm simply telling you that is not true and you haven't understood my point of view, otherwise you wouldn't say that.
In fact, I will insist that as much as you think your local realistic theory violates Bell's inequality, you have made a serious error. As long as you have a lingering belief that QM violates Bell's inequalities, you have made an error. I'm prepare to work through it to show you where your error is if only you would present how you arrive at the violation (ie provide the predictions for
from any theory you claim violates the inequalities). That is the starting point.
[quote="DanielLBurnstein"]I show that they are violated by both local hidden theories and QM rendering them useless.[/quote]
Daniel,
If you believe Bell's inequality is violated by QM and a LHV theory, back it up
[tex]|\langle A_iB_i\rangle - \langle A_iC_i\rangle| - \langle B_iC_i\rangle \leq 1[/tex]
by providing , [b]the predictions for the terms [/b]
[tex]\langle A_iB_i\rangle, \; \langle A_iC_i\rangle, \; \langle B_iC_i\rangle[/tex]
which you claim violate it. That's the starting point, if you insist on talking about "violation of Bell's inequality", it is hard to discuss without that.
[quote]You use statistical analysis of the data, I use strictly causal physics. Though I believe Bell's theorem does not correctly generalizes hidden variable theories, I show using the physics of Bell experiments that both LHV theories and QM will inevitably violate Bell's inequality thus Bell's inequality does not truly discriminate between them.[/quote]
I don't think you have fully appreciated it. Did you read any of the posts I referenced earlier? We've shown that the inequalities do not apply to the experiments at all. So if you believe they apply to LHV theories, you will have to explain in what way. Again, the starting point of that discussion is to provide the predictions you claim violate it.
[quote]"[i][...] by simply assuming that a detector does not detect electrons having spins relative to an axis, but rather only discriminates between ranges of spin angles, we can derive an inequality which predictions are in agreement with Bell experiments and are thus indistinguishable from the predictions of quantum mechanics for the same experiments. Hence, Bell’s generalization of hidden variables and the inequality derived form is not to be taken as a constraint of the predictions of local realistic theories. [/i]"[/quote]
Your conclusion does not seem to me at odds with my point of view. Though not having read the details of your approach, I can not vouch for its cogency. But you are the one insisting that my point of view is somehow handicapped by certain Bell assumptions, and I'm simply telling you that is not true and you haven't understood my point of view, otherwise you wouldn't say that.
In fact, I will insist that as much as you think your local realistic theory violates Bell's inequality, you have made a serious error. As long as you have a lingering belief that QM violates Bell's inequalities, you have made an error. I'm prepare to work through it to show you where your error is if only you would present how you arrive at the violation (ie provide the predictions for [tex]\langle A_iB_i\rangle, \; \langle A_iC_i\rangle, \; \langle B_iC_i\rangle[/tex] from any theory you claim violates the inequalities). That is the starting point.
