On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:10 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 1:42 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *>>> If local realism is falsified by Bell experiments, does that mean >>>> non-locality is affirmed?* >>> >>> *>> No.* >> >> >> *> Clark is quite wrong about this. * > > > *If you already knew the answer, or thought you did, then why did you ask > the question? * > > >> *> Neither realism nor determinism have anything to do with Bell's >> theorem. The theorem is entirely and exclusively about locality. This is >> spelled out fairly clearly in the review paper by Brunner at al. >> (arxiv.org/abs/1303.2849 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2849>) * > > > *I am quite sure that you haven't read that paper,* > I have read the paper. The terms "local causality" or "local realistic models" might be used. But that does not mean that they are relevant. * if you had you would have noticed that it says "**Bell also used the > term local causality instead of locality. Local hidden-variable or local > realistic models are also frequently used"* > > *Before deriving his Inequality Bell assumed "local realism" and that > means he assumed* > Bell did not assume realism. *1) locality: M**easurements on one particle cannot instantaneously affect > the state of a distant particle.* > > *2) Realism: A thing exists in one and only one definite state even if it > has not been measured.* > > *If both those assumptions are true and if you exclude superdeterminism > (which you should!) then it's logically impossible for Bell's Inequality to > be violated. But experiments definitively show that it is violated, > therefore one or both of the above assumptions must be invalid. * > > *> I see that Russell Standish has a recent post that also states that >> Bell's theorem depends on assumptions of Realism and Determinism. Russell >> is just as wrong about this as is John Clark. Bell's theorem depends only >> on the assumption of locality,* >> > > *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);* > This is not assumed in the derivation of the CHSH inequality, as I proved. Wikipedia is not an authority, and you should stop using it as if it were absolutely true in all things. Bruce * and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result > or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"* > -- 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/CAFxXSLTj-26MpM%3DCCRHe8Rrm6zBr7mmE3S1St8i653A2VvoWSw%40mail.gmail.com.
