Jarek wrote:You perform the experiment independently many times and probability should be seen as statistics.
Classicaly you would say that there is a probability distribution among 8 possibilities: measuring A and B, there is some probabibility distribution of C:
Pr(C=1) = Pr(AB1) / (Pr(AB0) + Pr(AB1))
Anyway, classicaly measuring only A and B, there is still some value of C, just unknown ... but this would lead to the inequality, violated in QM formalism.
Hence, C is not only unknown, but needs to be literally undefined to violate the inequality - what does it mean?
minkwe wrote:Jarek wrote:"tossing 3 coins, at least 2 are equal".
Sure, tossing 3 coins once each (ABC), 2 will be the same (A=B or B=C or A=C), but What about tossing two of the three coins each time 3 times (AB, AC, BC)? Will you still expect (A=B or B=C or A=C). If you think so, do the experiment and post your results.
This is the Bell delusion.
The counterargument Bell-believers of statistical proclivities make is that if you toss two of the three coins each time for a large number of times then you will get (A=B or B=C or A=C)
Jarek wrote:But the problem is that QM formalism, often also experiment, allows to violate this kind of looking obvious inequalities.
To understand it, we need to point incorrectness in their derivations - like that this "coin" C needs to not only have unkown value, but literally have no value ... what does it mean?
Jarek wrote:Whatever this Pr(ABC) probability distribution is (e.g. there can be dependencies), as derived earlier it satisfies Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1.
There is a crucial difference between ignoring the third value and not measuring it - what is this difference?
Jarek wrote:Indeed standard setting of two entangled photons does not allow to measure three binary properties at once.
However, the main question is if there can be some local realistic physics behind QM.
Having an object with any probability distribution among these 8 possibilities, it would need to satisfy Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1.
The question is how to model a local realistic object which, as QM ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5214.pdf ), can give Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) < 1 ?
Jarek wrote:I see you require " Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime with constant spatial curvature" cosmological assumption ... while asking about microscopic statistics, what is quite surprising.
What would change if your assumption was not satisfied?
Could you maybe give a simple intuition for the basic property of QM (allowing for Bell violation) - Born rule?
That probability of alternative of disjoint events is proportional to square of sum of their amplitudes?
Born rule has no place in local-realism.
It is incorrect to think that Born rule is responsible for the "violations" of Bell inequalities.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 84 guests