FrediFizzx wrote:parnassos2001 wrote:Isn't there a contradiction between (1.) "it is mathematically impossible for anything to violate any of Bell's inequalities" and (2.) "it is demonstrated why Bell inequalities must be violated even in such a manifestly local, macroscopic domain, just as they are in the microscopic domain"? Isn't that eating your cake and having it too?

I'm not exactly sure what you are quoting for (2) since no links. Unfortunately the language is inappropriate in (2). It is just part of the 50 years of brainwashing. Bell inequalities are never violated as shown why previously in this thread. IOW, exceeding the Bell-CHSH bound of 2 is not really a "violation" since a different inequality other than a Bell inequality is really being used. But saying it is a violation just means in the same way that say QM exceeds the 2 bound.

Fred, "parnassos2001" is quoting for (2) from the abstract of my paper I have just linked above. The language is indeed inappropriate in (2), but it is now the accepted language for the past 50 years, so it is inevitable to use it in any formal paper. It is like saying "gauge transformation" when we all know that what one means by that is "phase transformation." As you say, the correct wording should have been "apparently violated", or better still "exceeds the bound of 2."

***