On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
