by Jarek » Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:20 am
Mikko, substituting Pr(A≠B) = 1 - Pr(A=B) we get:
Pr(A≠B) + Pr(A≠B) + Pr(A≠B) <= 2
It is a bit different than what you have written - I am not certain about its status (?)
Anyway, the general problem is that violation of such looking obvious inequalities (by QM and physics) is believed to require giving up local realism.
Using ensemble (uniform, Boltzmann) of paths also allows to violate it in similar way (through Born rules) - this is realistic model, and in fact required if we e.g. think of general relativity: where we need to consider entire spcatime, particles are their paths.
It is not local in "evolving 3D" picture, but it is local in 4D spacetime/Einstein's block universe view - where particles are their trajectories, ensembles of such objects we should consider.
Ok, I should specify my question: what other realistic models (with some objective situation) allow to violate this looking obvious inequality?
Do you agree that considering ensembles of paths allows for that?
Mikko, substituting Pr(A≠B) = 1 - Pr(A=B) we get:
Pr(A≠B) + Pr(A≠B) + Pr(A≠B) <= 2
It is a bit different than what you have written - I am not certain about its status (?)
Anyway, the general problem is that violation of such looking obvious inequalities (by QM and physics) is believed to require giving up local realism.
Using ensemble (uniform, Boltzmann) of paths also allows to violate it in similar way (through Born rules) - this is realistic model, and in fact required if we e.g. think of general relativity: where we need to consider entire spcatime, particles are their paths.
It is not local in "evolving 3D" picture, but it is local in 4D spacetime/Einstein's block universe view - where particles are their trajectories, ensembles of such objects we should consider.
Ok, I should specify my question: what other realistic models (with some objective situation) allow to violate this looking obvious inequality?
Do you agree that considering ensembles of paths allows for that?