[ExI] Demonstration of Bell's Inequality

[Adrian Tymes]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:01 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly. Maybe they aren't really independent

"The spin of particles A and B is W and X" and "the spin of particles
A and B is Y and Z" are obviously not independent.  You are measuring
the same thing and trying to declare them separate properties, and
then amazed when it doesn't work out.  (Technically it's the spin of
one particle and the spin of another, but they're entangled so we know
they are 90 degrees apart whatever they are, so it reduces to a single
property.)

> The question is "what is the chance that the other package contains a heavy
> ball?". Y
> ou X-rayed your package so you know for a fact that the ball in it is red,
> so you also know for a fact that the ball in the other package is blue. You
> also know that there are 8 different types of balls:
>
> 1) Red heavy radioactive
> 2) Red light radioactive
> 3) Red heavy non-radioactive
> 4) Red light non-radioactive
> 5) Blue heavy radioactive
> 6) Blue light radioactive
> 7) Blue heavy non-radioactive
> 8) Blue light non-radioactive
>
>
> If the ball in the other package is
> heavy there are 2 and only 2 ways that could be:
>
>
> 1) The ball could be blue heavy and radioactive.
> Or
> 2)
> The ball could be blue heavy and
> non-
> radioactive

Assuming that if this ball is red, the other ball is blue.  But...

> That's 2 chances in 8

No.  If the other ball is blue then there are 4, not 8, cases it could be:

> 5) Blue heavy radioactive
> 6) Blue light radioactive
> 7) Blue heavy non-radioactive
> 8) Blue light non-radioactive

Therefore the chance of heaviness is 2 in 4 (case #5 or case #7 out of
case #5, #6, #7, or #8), not 2 in 8 (because we know it is not cases
#1-4).

Seriously, I don't get why you keep insisting on easily provable
falsehoods.  Your analogy has 4, not 8, blue cases, so if we know the
other ball is blue then we're picking the 2 blue-heavy cases from only
4, not 8, blue cases.  Likewise, the original paper's "3" properties
are in fact 1 property measured 3 ways.  These are basic facts, not
opinions.  If you are going to keep insisting it is otherwise then you
aren't worth responding to any further.