FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Yep, just as I figured. More of your freakin' nonsense. We are not taking your word for it. I was talking about a reference citing how they are wrong. Or lay it out in detail here. But as I was saying it doesn't really matter since Bell's theory is shot down.
Don't take my word for it. As I already told you, John Bell lays it out in "Bertlmann's socks". Look at Figure 7 and the surrounding text. (One paragraph of text before, and one paragraph after).
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00220688/document. Let us know if there is something you don't understand.
And take a look at the 2015 experiments:
Hensen, B., Bernien, H., Dréau, A. et al. Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature 526, 682–686 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15759M. Giustina, M.A.M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky et al. Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell's Theorem with Entangled Photons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115 (25) 250401, 7pp (2015)
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, et al. Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 250402 (2015).
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250402W. Rosenfeld, D. Burchardt, R.Garthoff, K.Redeker, N. Ortegel, M. Rau, and H. Weinfurter. Event-Ready Bell Test Using Entangled Atoms Simultaneously Closing Detection and Locality Loopholes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010402 (2016).
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.010402De Raedt, Hess and Michielsen write: "Central to these discussions and questions are the correlations of space-like separated detection events, some of which are interpreted as the observation of a pair of entities such as photons. The problem of classifying events as the observation of a “photon” or of something else is not as simple as in the case of say, billiard balls. The particle identification problem is, in fact, key for the understanding of the epistemology of correlations between events. What do we know about such correlations of space-like separated events? Popular presentations of Bell’s work typically involve two isolated persons (Alice, Bob) at separated measurement stations (Tenerife, La Palma), who just collect data of local measurements. But how does Alice know that she is dealing with a particle of a pair of which Bob investigates the other particle? She is supposed to be totally isolated from Bob’s wing of the experiment in order to fulfill Einstein’s separation and locality principle! The answer is that neither Alice nor Bob know they deal with correlated pairs if their stations are completely separated from each other and have no space-time knowledge of the other wing ever. In his theoretical work on the EPRB experiment, Bell did not address this fundamental question but considered correlated pairs as given, without any trace of the tools of measurement and of space-time concepts that are both necessary to accomplish the identification of events. He then claimed to have discovered a conflict between his theoretical description and the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB thought experiment [Bell: La Nouvelle Cuisine]."
It is absolutely clear that De Raedt, Hess and Michielsen do not know Bell's work well. Bell explains explicitly in "Bertlmann's socks" that Alice and Bob do not know and do not have to know that they are each dealing with one particle of the same pair of particles. He also does not assume that they "have no space-time knowledge of the other wing ever". They perform a lot of communication in advance to set up a sequence of time slots. In each time slot they each insert a binary setting into an apparatus and in each time slot they extract a binary outcome from the same apparatus. This is also exactly what the experimenters did in the 2015 experiments. De Raedt and his friends introduce a loophole into a loophole-free experiment by post-selecting according to "two particles of the same pair being detected at about the same time". That's how they can simulate local realistic violation of the Bell inequalities.