From: jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl   
      
   On 1/23/2018 7:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   > On 23/01/2018 8:56 AM, SEKI wrote:   
   >> In a Bell test experiment, a source produces a pair of particles, one   
   >> is sent to one location, and the other is sent to another location.   
   >> A measurement of particle spin/polarization is performed at a specific   
   >> angle at each location.   
   >>   
   >> The following points are facts and assumptions concerning Bell's   
   >> problem presentation.   
   >>   
   >> (1) In the vacuum space, zero-point oscillations of all wave-number   
   >> vectors with possible spin/polarization directions take place in each   
   >> quantum field.   
      
   Tere is no clear meaning in "zero-point oscillations". In the vacuum   
   state there are no oscillations. (Perhaps you mean that there are   
   excitations at finite temperature? But then why call it "zero-point"?)   
      
   >> (2) In the setting of Bell test experiments, zero-point oscillations   
   >> of other than the specific spin/polarization directions are assumed to   
   >> be suppressed significantly.   
      
   This assumption is not part of the usual derivation. But it may be true   
   that they do not enter the calculation anyway. Most importantly, it is   
   unclear how you would suppress anything belonging to the zero-point.   
   You cannot go below the ground state.   
      
   >> (3) A particle pair production is assumed to be induced by a zero-point   
   >> oscillation in a similar manner as in the case of stimulated emission   
   >> of a photon.   
      
   Again this assumption is not part of the derivation of Bell's result.   
   Also here, it is not even clear how it could be true: particle pairs   
   are created by other particles, not by zero point oscillations which   
   do not even exist! (Use the vacuum state as 'pilot wave' and you'll   
   see the test particle standing still.)   
      
   >> Then, the paradox concerning Bell's inequality can be considered to be   
   >> resolved.   
      
   There is no paradox in Bell's inequality. It can be proven with   
   mathematical rigor without any problem.   
      
   >> Am I wrong?   
   >>   
   >> SEKI   
   >>   
   >   
   > Yes, you are wrong.   
   >   
   > Bell's inequality has nothing to do with the specific details of   
   > particle pairs. It is about measurements performed on entangled pairs of   
   > particles. It shows that the observed measurements cannot be obtained if   
   > the system being observed has no non-local interactions.   
      
   The wording here seems a bit problematic: there *never* are non-local   
   interactions in local quantum field theory. And all our field theories   
   in the standard model are of that kind. Obviously you can say instead   
   that there must be non-local *correlations* in the system (at least if   
   we talk about observables at different point in space. You could keep   
   it even more abstract than that..) But that is obvious since Bell's   
   result is purely about correlations.   
      
   --   
   Jos   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)