On Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 10:03:04 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:10 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: *I quote from Wikipedia: * *"Its [Bell's Inequality] derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the underlying physical properties a0,a1,b0 and b1 exist independently of being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"* The writer of this Wikipedia entry has made an elementary blunder. He has confused the results of single measurements (a0, a1, b0, and b1) with the expectation values. The proof of the CHSH inequality uses only expectation values, so any assumption of Einstein realism is irrelevant. Bruce *Bell's theorem <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem>* What's confusing about this discussion is that it's more or less the general consensus among the physics community, that the results of Bell experiments disconfirm the assumption of hidden variables. And that their non existence denies Einstein Realism. You, Bruce, seem to have a private defintion of non-locality, so when Bell experiments deny locatity, you are sematically correct describe this as non-locality, but it has little correspondence to what I think this means -- possibly because of my alleged classical bias. AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/192c983d-9409-4b99-ae35-8149f7536588n%40googlegroups.com.
