# [ExI] Demonstration of Bell's Inequality

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Fri Nov 25 00:47:43 UTC 2016

```On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> ​> ​
> This analogy is not itself a QM experiment.

​Yes it's an analogy, but just ​
replace the sealed packages with photons of undetermined polarization and
replace the X-ray machine, scale and geiger counter with sunglass lenses
set at 0, 45 and 90 degrees and you've got it.     ​

> ​> ​
> The "three properties"
> ​ ​
> that are independent here are not in fact independent

​That's one possibility, but if the are connected that connection can NOT
be local as I demonstrated in a previous post showing how a impossible to
build machine (with conventional logic) could nevertheless be built.​

​ Another possibility is that things are not realistic, maybe the balls in
those packages had no properties at all until they or their correlated
partner were Xrayed weighed or tested for radioactivity.  ​

​>​
> Until this email, you were saying it was 1 chance in 4.

​Conventional logic said 2 chances in 8 because the balls were picked from
a pool of 8 not 4, and only 2 of those 8 were both blue and heavy.
It's not like the Monty Hall puzzle where our probability estimate changes
from the original 1 chance in 3 to 2 chances in 3 of winning the new car if
we change our pick because Monty, who knows exactly where the car is, told
us new information. We change our pick because Monty told us the car is not
behind door #3 and we know he won't open any door we pick until the very
end. But in the quantum case where did the new information to change the
odds come from? There is nothing equivalent to a cosmic Monty saying "the
other ball was picked only from the blue ones". If you doubt this just ask
the guy who picked the packages in the first place, he'll say "I just
picked 2 packages at random and had no idea what color the balls inside
them were or knew anything about them.  So
conventional logic said 2 chance in 8
​, both ​
quantum logic and experiment said ​
​1 chance in 3, and whatever you were using said 1 chance in 2. ​

​Come to think of it....,maybe there really is a cosmic Monty Hall, but if
so Monty is quantum entanglement. And I find that weird.

​> ​
> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

​Actually it isn't. I am unable to personally reproduce ​every experiment I
read about in the journal Science, but it has a very high reputation, that
is to say from its history we know that most of the things in it turn out
to be largely true; so if you read about an experiment in it you can use
induction to conclude those results are probably (although not certainly)
true.

​John K Clark​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161124/8fee5354/attachment.html>
```