Too many stupid eggheads here. The answer is so simple without all your voodoo on both sides of the argument. BellBell was simply wrong, did not understand basic probability math, and the experiments actually show no difference between all the psyco-spooky-voodoo nuts' ideas and EPR's Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen's (EPR) simple hidden variable. I suggest you remember Occam, have a bit of normal sanity Remember Occam's, and please choose the simplesimpler explanation. For those who are too lazy to actually do the REALThe math, as is explained properly by Jaynes, but I'll make it very simple with an example. 2Two particles are created such that thaythey have opposing spins. This is a given, but we will gloss over the fact that the spins are not necessarily exactly opposite at every point in time in their futures. We only require that some physical measurement (angulare.g. angular momentum, whatever, it doesn't matter) is conserved according to what current theory or measurement says so. But let's for the moment assume they are always opposite. If we assume EPR, then there is some 3D vector showing the spin poles of each particle. We don't know what it is yet, so we measure it. (By the way, this is IDENTICALidentical to what would happen with the nutzo QM ideaquantum mechanics (QM), that the actual value only exists at measurement time.) But How??how? We have this cool gadgetapparatus that shows if some set angle of a piece of equipment is aligned with the spin of the particle. Well, not exactly, as we could NEVERnever get it aligned exactly, so our apparatus just tells us if the angles are off by less than 90 (spin UP) or more than 90 (spin DOWN) from the the angle we chose. So our mysteryunknown value, as measured in the 2D plane of our rotating test thinghy, can only tell us that the actual spin value of particle A was somewhere +-$\pm$ 90 degrees to our test angle. And BTW, thisThis is the SAMEsame regardless of EPR or QM. The actual value, wetherwhether it collapsed just now, or existed from t0$t_0$, we can only know the value WASwas in this half of the potential solution space. Cool. NowNow we know forwith certainty that the other particle B must be in the OTHERother 180 degree part of the circle. If the other measurement was 90 degrees off from the first, we would expect 50/50 chance of UP or DOWN, as the known 180 degree possible area is divided exactly in half. If the chosen angles were the same, there is 100% chance they will be opposite. However, if measurement B was 120 degrees off from A, there is a smaller possibility they will have the same result! When you realise nothing voodoo needs to happen to get more info, weWe are just simply revealing the underlying real physical value (or collapsed voodoo value - no diff.) So as in WAY too many The expositions of the form, "look at these 9 possible outcomes of 11, 12, 13, 21, yada yada BS" explanations,etc" do not a single one of them correctly realisedescribe that each of these 9 buckets have different probabilities as a function of how we are measuring, and what angles we choose. The 5/9ths ratio is a liefalse! And now that I have shown you how easy it is to see with an example, you need toshould use the CORRECTcorrect math equations as Jayne does. The expected outcome of measurement B changes when we have information from measurement A. No need to separate with a long distance. No magical transfer of state. Just a little more info gained. And it makes NO DIFFno difference! These experiments can NEVERnever reveal what is really going on. We can only know that there is a fuzzy value of some measurmentmeasurement that tells us which half of a circle HADhad the spin of the thing when we measured it. I like Occam. No voodooOccam; no nonsense required.
Too many stupid eggheads here. The answer is so simple without all your voodoo on both sides of the argument. Bell was simply wrong, did not understand basic probability math, and the experiments actually show no difference between all the psyco-spooky-voodoo nuts' ideas and EPR's simple hidden variable. I suggest you remember Occam, have a bit of normal sanity, and please choose the simple explanation. For those who are too lazy to actually do the REAL math, as explained properly by Jaynes, I'll make it very simple with an example. 2 particles are created such that thay have opposing spins. This is a given, but we will gloss over the fact that the spins are not necessarily exactly opposite at every point in time in their futures. We only require that some physical measurement (angular momentum, whatever, it doesn't matter) is conserved according to what current theory or measurement says so. But let's for the moment assume they are always opposite. If we assume EPR, there is some 3D vector showing the spin poles of each particle. We don't know what it is yet, so we measure it. (By the way, this is IDENTICAL to what would happen with the nutzo QM idea, that the actual value only exists at measurement time.) But How??? We have this cool gadget that shows if some set angle of a piece of equipment is aligned with the spin of the particle. Well, not exactly, as we could NEVER get it aligned exactly, so our apparatus just tells us if the angles are off by less than 90 (spin UP) or more than 90 (spin DOWN) from the the angle we chose. So our mystery value, as measured in the 2D plane of our rotating test thinghy, can only tell us that the actual spin value of particle A was somewhere +- 90 degrees to our test angle. And BTW, this is the SAME regardless of EPR or QM. The actual value, wether it collapsed just now, or existed from t0, we can only know the value WAS in this half of the potential solution space. Cool. Now we know for certainty that the other particle B must be in the OTHER 180 degree part of the circle. If the other measurement was 90 degrees off from the first, we would expect 50/50 chance of UP or DOWN, as the known 180 degree possible area is divided exactly in half. If the chosen angles were the same, there is 100% chance they will be opposite. However, if measurement B was 120 degrees off from A, there is a smaller possibility they will have the same result! When you realise nothing voodoo needs to happen to get more info, we are just simply revealing the underlying real physical value (or collapsed voodoo value - no diff.) So as in WAY too many "look at these 9 possible outcomes of 11, 12, 13, 21, yada yada BS" explanations, not a single one of them correctly realise that each of these 9 buckets have different probabilities as a function of how we are measuring, and what angles we choose. The 5/9ths is a lie! And now that I have shown you how easy it is to see with an example, you need to use the CORRECT math equations as Jayne does. The expected outcome of measurement B changes when we have information from measurement A. No need to separate with a long distance. No magical transfer of state. Just a little more info gained. And it makes NO DIFF! These experiments can NEVER reveal what is really going on. We can only know that there is a fuzzy value of some measurment that tells us which half of a circle HAD the spin of the thing when we measured it. I like Occam. No voodoo required.
Bell was simply wrong, did not understand basic probability math, and the experiments actually show no difference between all the ideas and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen's (EPR) simple hidden variable. Remember Occam's, and please choose the simpler explanation. The math is explained properly by Jaynes, but I'll make it very simple with an example. Two particles are created such that they have opposing spins. This is a given, but we will gloss over the fact that the spins are not necessarily exactly opposite at every point in time in their futures. We only require that some physical measurement (e.g. angular momentum) is conserved according to what current theory or measurement says so. But let's for the moment assume they are always opposite. If we assume EPR, then there is some 3D vector showing the spin poles of each particle. We don't know what it is yet, so we measure it. (By the way, this is identical to what would happen with quantum mechanics (QM), that the actual value only exists at measurement time.) But how? We have this apparatus that shows if some set angle of a piece of equipment is aligned with the spin of the particle. Well, not exactly, as we could never get it aligned exactly, so our apparatus just tells us if the angles are off by less than 90 (spin UP) or more than 90 (spin DOWN) from the the angle we chose. So our unknown value, as measured in the 2D plane of our rotating test, can only tell us that the actual spin value of particle A was somewhere $\pm$ 90 degrees to our test angle. This is the same regardless of EPR or QM. The actual value, whether it collapsed just now, or existed from $t_0$, we can only know the value was in this half of the potential solution space. Now we know with certainty that the other particle B must be in the other 180 degree part of the circle. If the other measurement was 90 degrees off from the first, we would expect 50/50 chance of UP or DOWN, as the known 180 degree possible area is divided exactly in half. If the chosen angles were the same, there is 100% chance they will be opposite. However, if measurement B was 120 degrees off from A, there is a smaller possibility they will have the same result! We are simply revealing the underlying real physical value. The expositions of the form, "look at these 9 possible outcomes of 11, 12, 13, 21, etc" do not correctly describe that each of these 9 buckets have different probabilities as a function of how we are measuring, and what angles we choose. The 5/9ths ratio is false! And now that I have shown you how easy it is to see with an example, you should use the correct math equations as Jayne does. The expected outcome of measurement B changes when we have information from measurement A. No need to separate with a long distance. No transfer of state. Just a little more info gained. And it makes no difference! These experiments can never reveal what is really going on. We can only know that there is a fuzzy value of some measurement that tells us which half of a circle had the spin of the thing when we measured it. I like Occam; no nonsense required.
Too many stupid eggheads here. The answer is so simple without all your voodoo on both sides of the argument. Bell was simply wrong, did not understand basic probability math, and the experiments actually show no difference between all the psyco-spooky-voodoo nuts' ideas and EPR's simple hidden variable. I suggest you remember Occam, have a bit of normal sanity, and please choose the simple explanation. For those who are too lazy to actually do the REAL math, as explained properly by Jaynes, I'll make it very simple with an example. 2 particles are created such that thay have opposing spins. This is a given, but we will gloss over the fact that the spins are not necessarily exactly opposite at every point in time in their futures. We only require that some physical measurement (angular momentum, whatever, it doesn't matter) is conserved according to what current theory or measurement says so. But let's for the moment assume they are always opposite. If we assume EPR, there is some 3D vector showing the spin poles of each particle. We don't know what it is yet, so we measure it. (By the way, this is IDENTICAL to what would happen with the nutzo QM idea, that the actual value only exists at measurement time.) But How??? We have this cool gadget that shows if some set angle of a piece of equipment is aligned with the spin of the particle. Well, not exactly, as we could NEVER get it aligned exactly, so our apparatus just tells us if the angles are off by less than 90 (spin UP) or more than 90 (spin DOWN) from the the angle we chose. So our mystery value, as measured in the 2D plane of our rotating test thinghy, can only tell us that the actual spin value of particle A was somewhere +- 90 degrees to our test angle. And BTW, this is the SAME regardless of EPR or QM. The actual value, wether it collapsed just now, or existed from t0, we can only know the value WAS in this half of the potential solution space. Cool. Now we know for certainty that the other particle B must be in the OTHER 180 degree part of the circle. If the other measurement was 90 degrees off from the first, we would expect 50/50 chance of UP or DOWN, as the known 180 degree possible area is divided exactly in half. If the chosen angles were the same, there is 100% chance they will be opposite. However, if measurement B was 120 degrees off from A, there is a smaller possibility they will have the same result! When you realise nothing voodoo needs to happen to get more info, we are just simply revealing the underlying real physical value (or collapsed voodoo value - no diff.) So as in WAY too many "look at these 9 possible outcomes of 11, 12, 13, 21, yada yada BS" explanations, not a single one of them correctly realise that each of these 9 buckets have different probabilities as a function of how we are measuring, and what angles we choose. The 5/9ths is a lie! And now that I have shown you how easy it is to see with an example, you need to use the CORRECT math equations as Jayne does. The expected outcome of measurement B changes when we have information from measurement A. No need to separate with a long distance. No magical transfer of state. Just a little more info gained. And it makes NO DIFF! These experiments can NEVER reveal what is really going on. We can only know that there is a fuzzy value of some measurment that tells us which half of a circle HAD the spin of the thing when we measured it. I like Occam. No voodoo required.