gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:It really boggles my mind that an immediate giant alarm bell doesn't go off in Bell fan's heads when you have an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate that is supposedly "violated" by QM and the experiments. That should tell you that something is not correct right there. What the heck happened to their alarm bells?

Dear Fred

This oft-repeated statement of yours boggles my mind.

Bell derived a mathematical inequality under certain mathematical conditions, inspired by physical intuition. The inequality is trivial and the proof is elementary.

The inequality is violated by QM and by experiments.

Conclusion: the mathematical structure of QM is in conflict with those mathematical conditions. Moreover, because of the violation of the inequalities in very, very careful and rigorously performed experiments, the physical intuition which Bell translated into mathematics is wrong, or his translation is wrong.

A lot of very, very smart people have been discussing "what is wrong" for >> 50 years now. And they've been discussing the EPR paper for >> 80 years. Not many people claim that all this work was a waste of time and that the "problem" is completely illusory. Moreover, each of such persons has their own explanation for the whole big mess and does not agree with any of the others.

I'm have to inform you that in fact the experiments and QM never "violate" any of Bell's inequalities. Please demonstrate mathematically how they could possibly ever do that. You can't because what they do is use an inequality with a higher bound and never actually use the Bell inequalities.

.