minkwe wrote:The claims I'm making in this thread are very simple.
Bell's original inequality (equation 15) as derived is:
Where
is not the result of a separate measurement, but a "franken-correlation" re-assembled from the two other measurements. This is obvious from Bell's arithmetic in the derivation. He fails to recognize that according to QM
and therefore by writing the final result as
He deceives himself into thinking the three terms correspond to three different experiments. He makes a hidden false assumption that
. Therefore, he uses the QM predictions for three separate measurements to claim that QM violates an inequality that contains only two actual measurements plus a "franken-measurement". However, if he used the correct QM prediction, QM would not have violated the inequality.
The reasoning is the following:
STEP 1:
According to HV eq (14) is the mathematical expression for the mean result of a large number of experiments measured with settings a, and b, i.e., P(a,b).
Equation (14) is a generic expression meaning that settings (a,b) may be replaced with other symbols representing other experimental settings and the expression is supposed to be still valid.
STEP 2:
Forget real experiments an let us do a little math. He writes mathematical expression for |P(a,b)-P(a,c)| and
after elementary and valid mathematical operations he finds that
Observation:He did not "literally" materialized a third actual experiment from only two. He did that with a mathematical expression that finally can be interpreted as representing three actual experiments if the assumption in STEP 1 is correct.
STEP 3:
Applying STEP 1 he predicts the result of three different series of experiments performed with three different settings (a,b),(a,c), and (b,c) must be constrained by the inequality (15)
CONCLUSION
If you do not agree with equation (15) and what it represents you must reject either the interpretation given in STEP 1 or mathematics elementary laws.
Which one do you reject?