gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 What nonsense! The experimenters seem to always claim that they have "violated" such and such inequality. Which is pure BS. They have done no such thing. The experiments only validate the predictions of QM. There is nothing strange at all by what I said. It is based in pure fact. You are spewing typical Bell fanatic obfuscations.

.

If anyone can demonstrate how QM or the experiments "violate" or exceed the bounds on the Bell inequalities, go for it! I will show you where your mistake is.

.

The experiments confirm the predictions of quantum mechanics. They disagree with the predictions of local realism. Notice the section of the previously mentioned Wikipedia page where the CHSH inequality is derived. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem#Derivation_of_the_classical_bound It is derived using some physical assumptions, called nowadays “local hidden variables” or “local realism”. The experiments show that local realism has to be discarded. Neither you, Fred, nor Michel, have shown us an error in the derivation, on Wikipedia, of the CHSH inequality. Of course you are both free to disagree with the physical assumptions which were used. Plenty of people argue that those assumptions should be jettisoned. Not because they have a problem with quantum mechanics but because they are looking for a theory “behind QM” which reproduces its predictions and which lends itself better to future theories of quantum gravity. See for instance viewtopic.php?f=6&t=486#p14021

This is all untrue. A careful review shows that no "local realism" or other physical assumption is required to derive Bells inequality. The only assumption needed is:

* 4 functions generating numbers .

Everything else is mumbo Jumbo.

Every other derivation that purports to start from 8 functions makes an additional assumption that the 8 functions can be reduced to 4. But as explained this is not possible irrespective of what type of process the functions represent.