Justo wrote:Generated in the same way, yes but it is not enough. Alices' and Bob's joint measurements must have originated in the same event, otherwise, they would not correspond to an entangled pair.

Exactly!

Justo wrote:gill1109 wrote:It is necessary to distinguish between data collected from an experiment and mathematical calculations in a model.

Not quite so, if your mathematical framework does not describe what is happening in the experiment, then it is meaningless to compare your theoretical prediction with what you find in the experiment.Both, quantum mechanics and hidden variables describe the same experiment.

Exactly! The question I'm addressing in scenarios 1 to 4 is the question of whether the inequalities describe the same experiment.

Justo wrote:minkwe and others are right to say that the Bell inequality is meaningless because they interpret it as disconnected from what is actually done in the experiments. In that I sense, I agree with them, however, I disagree with them when they say that Bell's derivation does not describe the real experiments.

It's more subtle than that. The way the inequality is derived puts limits on how you can interpret its result. If you say the terms in the inequality are strongly objective (from the same set of particle pairs), then it is divorced from the real experiments & QM prediction and can't ever be tested. If you say the terms in the inequality are weakly objective (from different particle pairs), then you can't complete the derivation without making other hidden assumptions that are also false (eg. that the data can be rearranged).

gill1109 wrote:Ah, when I say "generated in the same way" I mean the whole process including what goes on earlier at the source, which obviously is designed to create correlations between what is observed by Alice and what is observed at Bob.

I think we agreed already that "generated in the same way" meant, particles in the singlet state. There is no way for 8 sets of particle pairs to all be in the singlet state with every other pair after recombination. Therefore the only meaning that is consistent with QM is the weakly objective one.

gill1109 wrote:If we put some monkeys behind typewriters they will eventually write all of Bell's works including reproducing some of his proofs of his inequalities.

They very very likely will never do that. There are more plausible events that will never happen. This is why the interpretation of probability as long-running averages is problematic.

gill1109 wrote: "The meaning of the inequality" depends on the intention of the agent who writes it down. And that depends on the context that they have in mind.

Nope. Sometimes agents make mistakes and they think their equations mean one thing when it means something completely different. Therefore, the meaning is what the equations say unambiguously, not what the agent says.

Quantum mechanics and local hidden variables can both be used in an attempt to describe a Bell-CHSH type experiment. If the experiment is done rigorously as has only been possible for the last couple of years, then quantum mechanics has been shown to describe such experiments rather well, while local realism has been shown to fail badly.

Not true. Local realism has been shown to describe these experiments very well. The problem is those who judge these things are part of an institution that stands to benefit from the allure of mysticism. Therefore the judgements have been unfair. Every time local realism describes the experiment, it is recast as "a loophole". But since nobody understands QM and how QM "explains" these experiments, nobody is able to characterize the QM predictions as "exploiting loopholes".

But as I explained above in scenarios 1 to 4, just a little bit of effort thinking about the actual QM prediction for the different scenarios shows that QM does not actually violate anything. The experiments don't actually violate anything. All that is happening is that we are doing a bait-and-switch tactic. Derive the inequalities for one scenario, and then calculate QM predictions for a completely different scenario.

On the other hand, quantum mechanics does not *explain* in a *mechanical* way what actually happened, trial by trial. It only yields statistical predictions.

Exactly. That's why it is difficult to tell if QM actually exploits so-called "loopholes".

Local realism is an attempt to describe, trial by trial, a mechanism which could generate those same statistical results. Moreover, the mechanism should not require the instantaneous transmission of information from one place to another. Bohmian mechanics does explain trial by trial what actually happened but it requires action at a distance.

Yes, and there are plenty of local realistic models that accomplish it without transmitting any information. I have a couple. But then as I already said, you will claim "loophole" when you see that.