jtankersley wrote:If the paper "Bell's Theorem with Easy Math, David R. Schneider" (https://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm) is correct, then does it expose a flaw with Bell's Inequalities test, only allowing 1 possible result, regardless of any assumptions about particle properties?
Argument demonstrated with a simple simulation at https://codeserver.net/nb/
jtankersley wrote:Agreed that the simulation does not represent any specific Bell experiment.
It is a simplification, reducing to the simplest possible observable experiment, and simplest possible math.
This appears to be what Bell is actually testing for, according to Schneider.
Bell's Inequality test was supposed to prove or disprove the EPR (Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen) paper, but the requirements for EPR to win are not mathematically possible, based on Schneider "Bell Theorem Negative Probabilities" paper (i), (test cases 2 and 7).
So either I am mis-understanding Schneider, or Schneider is mis-understanding Bell, or Bell is wrong.
(i) Schneider, Bell Theorem Negative Probabilities http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem ... lities.htm
jtankersley wrote:Agreed that the simulation does not represent any specific Bell experiment. It is a simplification, reducing to the simplest possible observable experiment, and simplest possible math.
jtankersley wrote:This appears to be what Bell is actually testing for, according to Schneider.
jtankersley wrote:Bell's Inequality test was supposed to prove or disprove the EPR (Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen) paper, but the requirements for EPR to win are not mathematically possible, based on Schneider "Bell Theorem Negative Probabilities" paper (i), (test cases 2 and 7).
jtankersley wrote: So either I am mis-understanding Schneider, or Schneider is mis-understanding Bell, or Bell is wrong.
jtankersley wrote:What I can do though is write computer software, version 0.1 of the app was an incomplete draft, version 0.2 is more complete (but still beta) at http://codeserver.net/nb/.
This version now also calculates QM Expectations, simplified from Scheider, but I suspect possibly equivalent enough to be relevant.
Mikko wrote:
Bell's article proved that Einstein & Podolsky & Rosen had failed to consider an important point.
jtankersley wrote:But it may be more interesting if adding a simulated pilot wave could violate Bell's inequalities
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 96 guests