From: carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu   
      
   On 2/11/18 3:42 AM, SEKI wrote:   
   > On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 1:15:46 AM UTC+9, Mikko wrote:   
   >> In article , SEKI wrote:   
      
   >>> This question is, however, about assumptions (2) and (3). If   
   >>> these assumptions are correct, Bell's arguments are to lose   
   >>> their meaning completely.   
      
   >> No, they don't. You have not shown any connection from your   
   >> assumptions to Bell's arguments.   
      
   > As I already wrote in a number of previous postings, if the   
   > assumptions are correct, spin/polarization directions of paired   
   > particles are to be determined when they are produced, and are to be   
   > biased in accordance with the experimental setting.   
      
   Experimental tests of Bell's inequality have been performed in   
   which the experimental settings are changed randomly *after*   
   the photons have been emitted.  I'm afraid your proposal is   
   ruled out by observation.   
      
   See   
   Aktas et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 220404 (2015), arXiv:1504.08332   
   Handsteiner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 060401 (2017),   
   	arXiv:1611.06985   
      
   Steve Carlip   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)