Heinera wrote:And

is not uniquely determined for non-local theories like QM. For non-local models in general, the value of

can take on different values depending on the setting

or

in the other wing, even for the same

. This is not the case for a local model.

SInce this expression makes no sense in QM, and can't be computed, the rest of your argument goes down the drain.

Gobbledygook! QM makes predictions for

, experiments measure empirical expectations for

LHV models of the QM and experimental expectations also calculate expectations for

.

All those terms are statistically independent This is the part that passes through one of your ears and straight out the other, so pay careful attention. The statistical independence in those terms has absolutely nothing to do with locality or hidden variables, or any other physical concept. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Bell's inequality uses the terms

. These terms are statistically dependent, all defined for exactly the same set of particle pairs. If the number of degrees of freedom for a single particle is

, then for

particle pairs Bell's inequality involves

degrees of freedom. However, the experiments have three times more degrees of freedom

, and even up to 4 times more for the CHSH variant. That is why the row-permutations presented in post #1 can not be completed. And that is why you can't back up the claim that QM violates the inequality, nor can you back up the claim that experiments violate the inequality. This is all clearly explained in post #1.

In any case, we now have you on record stating that Bell's inequality makes no sense in QM and can't be computed

Heinera wrote:minkwe wrote:Bell's inequality is the following:

,

SInce this expression makes no sense in QM, and can't be computed, the rest of your argument goes down the drain.

Perhaps what has gone down the drain is the gray matter of whoever thinks such a pronouncement is counter to my argument, because it is Bell's argument you just illustrated to be completely bogus not mine. The question I asked to elicit this interesting admission is a lose-lose scenario for Bell worshipers, it is a virtual line in the sand:

minkwe wrote:Please demonstrate that QM violates Bell's inequalityIn other words,

please provide the QM predictions for the terms

Either a Bell worshiper decides to follow their prophet and provide the terms the same way he did and then suffer the fate of the statistical independence wack-a-mole, or they try to claim that the inequality makes no sense in QM, contrary to what the prophet himself preached and other faithfuls continue to preach and practice ardently. At some point, they may even attempt to sneak in a different inequality for which they are able to provide terms, except they hope others will be fooled by the similar notation into thinking it was the same inequality as Bell's inequality. Perhaps they've themselves been fooled by careless use of notation.