On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> >>> Bell derived his inequality assuming QM with collapse
>>
>
> >> No he did not, Bell makes no such assumption or interpretation, in fact
> not one word about Quantum Mechanics is needed in his entire derivation.
> None zero zilch goose egg. And that is why even if Quantum Mechanics turns
> out to be wrong and is succeeded with a newer and better theory it would
> still be true that if things are realistic and local then Bell's inequality
> can NEVER  BE VIOLATED, provided that high school algebra and trigonometry
> are valid.
>
> > Yes, you are correct on this.
>

Thank you.


> > But Bell shows also that QM-*with*-collapse violates the inequality.
>

I don't know what you mean by that and I thought you were a fan of MWI but
here you seem to be arguing against it because in Many Worlds the wave
function does NOT collapse but Bell's inequality IS violated.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to