Esail wrote:gill1109 wrote:Bell’s A(a, lambda) is an arbitrary function of the initial state of everything relevant in all of the physical systems involved - detectors, source, transmission lines - and of the setting “a”, which is later introduced into Alice’s detector, from outside. A dial on an apparatus is set to point at “a”. “lambda” is the context!
Do you claim your model can be programmed? Do you accept my rules - a proposed procedure to test that it correctly implements locality? Would it pass the tests which I’ve outlined?
"lambda" in Bell's 1964 paper does not depend on the setting of either polarizer. The context on the other hand is given by the selection by the opposite polarizer. Thus, "lambda" cannot be the context.
By the way, my model can be programmed. But I refuse to do so. I'm a physicist and discuss arguments instead of computer programs. So do other physicists including Bell.
I’m a mathematician and a scientist. I’m interested in logic and in arguments. I know your model can’t be programmed, while satisfying the locality tests which I propose.
It is interesting that you say that the context of Alice’s measurement includes the setting of Bob’s polariser. The context of Alice and Bob’s joint measurement includes the settings of both polarisers. It seems you are following Bohr and Bohm in some sort of holistic vision of an undivided universe.