Randomness

[Heinera]

I don't think I would call it a hidden variable since we know that it is from the fact that s_N's spin vector can point in any random 3D direction. But whatever floats your boat. I suppose that once we know the "cause" then it is not really hidden any more is it? But for sure the fact remains that it is a variable.

In Bell's terminology a hidden variable is anything in the state that influences the outcome (no matter if we know it's cause), so this is definitely a hidden variable.
…

That is baloney. a and b influence the outcomes.

Fred, a and b are not in the state of the particle.

[FrediFizzx]

I don't think I would call it a hidden variable since we know that it is from the fact that s_N's spin vector can point in any random 3D direction. But whatever floats your boat. I suppose that once we know the "cause" then it is not really hidden any more is it? But for sure the fact remains that it is a variable.

In Bell's terminology a hidden variable is anything in the state that influences the outcome (no matter if we know it's cause), so this is definitely a hidden variable.
…

That is baloney. a and b influence the outcomes.

Fred, a and b are not in the state of the particle.

Sorry I edited my post. Sure but a and b relative to s are going to influence the outcomes.

[Heinera]

Sorry I edited my post. Sure but a and b relative to s are going to influence the outcomes.

Of course. But hidden variables are restricted to properties of the particles themselves, so a and b are excluded.

But anyway, now it is at least plausible that your formulas can produce something like the classical triangle correlations. It cannot produce the quantum correlations. To convince anyone of the opposite, you would have to encode the two formulas as computer code and run a simulation.

[Joy Christian]

To convince anyone of the opposite, you would have to encode the two formulas as computer code and run a simulation.

Demands of computer code and simulation are red herrings. Nowhere John Bell said anything about simulations. His "theorem" is an analytical claim, and should only be addressed as such.

***

[FrediFizzx]

Sorry I edited my post. Sure but a and b relative to s are going to influence the outcomes.

Of course. But hidden variables are restricted to properties of the particles themselves, so a and b are excluded.

But anyway, now it is at least plausible that your formulas can produce something like the classical triangle correlations. It cannot produce the quantum correlations. To convince anyone of the opposite, you would have to encode the two formulas as computer code and run a simulation.

How can a and b be excluded if the outcomes depend on them relative to the spin vector of the particles. a, b and s are all just perfectly normal random variables.

We have already done the computer code with GAViewer for Joy's model and it works perfectly to obtain -a.b. No sense in repeating it.
.

[Heinera]

Sorry I edited my post. Sure but a and b relative to s are going to influence the outcomes.

Of course. But hidden variables are restricted to properties of the particles themselves, so a and b are excluded.

But anyway, now it is at least plausible that your formulas can produce something like the classical triangle correlations. It cannot produce the quantum correlations. To convince anyone of the opposite, you would have to encode the two formulas as computer code and run a simulation.

How can a and b be excluded if the outcomes depend on them relative to the spin vector of the particles. a, b and s are all just perfectly normal random variables.
.

This is just terminology of what Bell meant by a "hidden variable". He did not include the detector settings, because the determination of those are not part of the physical model. They are supposed to be the result of a free choice by the experimenters.

We have already done the computer code with GAViewer for Joy's model and it works perfectly to obtain -a.b. No sense in repeating it.
.

The GA-viewer code is not a simulation of the experiment. The only convincing code would be one where the computer functions for A and B output -1 or 1 for each instance of the inputs. Why should this be so difficult? Your functions look easy enough. There is no GA in them, so why should anyone need GA-viewer?

[FrediFizzx]

Sorry I edited my post. Sure but a and b relative to s are going to influence the outcomes.

Of course. But hidden variables are restricted to properties of the particles themselves, so a and b are excluded.

But anyway, now it is at least plausible that your formulas can produce something like the classical triangle correlations. It cannot produce the quantum correlations. To convince anyone of the opposite, you would have to encode the two formulas as computer code and run a simulation.

How can a and b be excluded if the outcomes depend on them relative to the spin vector of the particles. a, b and s are all just perfectly normal random variables.
.

This is just terminology of what Bell meant by a "hidden variable". He did not include the detector settings, because the determination of those are not part of the physical model. They are supposed to be the result of a free choice by the experimenters.

We have already done the computer code with GAViewer for Joy's model and it works perfectly to obtain -a.b. No sense in repeating it.
.

The GA-viewer code is not a simulation of the experiment. The only convincing code would be one where the computer functions for A and B output -1 or 1 for each instance of the inputs. Why should this be so difficult? Your functions look easy enough. There is no GA in them, so why should anyone need GA-viewer?

We don't have to do an experimental simulation to validate the math. We are doing QM here and you know very well that QM can't predict individual events in the EPR-Bohm case.

Well, Bell made another mistake didn't he? The polarizer settings are most certainly part of the model.
.

[Heinera]

We don't have to do an experimental simulation to validate the math.
.

My point is this: All evidence indicate your math doesn't convince anyone. A successful simulation would.

[FrediFizzx]

We don't have to do an experimental simulation to validate the math.
.

My point is this: All evidence indicate your math doesn't convince anyone. A successful simulation would.

Well, we will eventually see about who it convinces. If you can figure out how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes for the EPR-Bohm case, let us know.

[Joy Christian]

We don't have to do an experimental simulation to validate the math.
.

My point is this: All evidence indicate your math doesn't convince anyone. A successful simulation would.

Nothing would convince a diehard Bell-believer, because a belief in Bell's demonstrably false claim is a belief, not science.

***