Talk:Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My intention is to link to here from several other pages, but first I think the relevant pages all need some changes. Popular myths are in danger of being taken as fact! Caroline Thompson 22:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis suggested a ref to Amir Aczel's popular book "Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics". If this is to be given as a ref, it needs a little qualification. Aczel, according, to Barnes and Noble.com, "cites new experiments that indicate that entanglement does occur and describes how further research may lead to unbreakable codes and even teleportation". I have just added a section on the experimental loopholes that perhaps should have been there from the outset. There is as yet no convincing evidence that quantum entanglement occurs. Caroline Thompson 22:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

>> There is as yet no convincing evidence that quantum entanglement occurs. <<

I am disputing this claim on Talk:Quantum entanglement. -- Beland 02:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll respond there. Caroline Thompson 08:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Is the author "C. H. Thompson" the same as User:Caroline Thompson? If so, wouldn't that violate the Wikipedia policy on not posting articles on original research? -- Beland 13:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but I was told that articles that have appeared in refereed journals are acceptable. The only reference to my work that has not been published is the last:

Clauser and Horne’s 1974 Bell inequality: a neglected escape route from the ‘fair sampling’ loophole (http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/CH74/CH74assumptions.htm).

I could delete this if people insist, though the contents consist mostly of sections from Clauser et al's papers of 1969, 1974 and 1978. It is shorter and more accessible than these. Caroline Thompson 21:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV, "Needing attention" and "Cleanup" warnings[edit]

"AnyFile" listed this article as needing attention and cleanup some time ago, but gave no reason in the talk page. DrChinese has now put a POV notice on it, but again giving no reason. Can the people concerned please specify what changes they wish for? My distinct impresion is that they do not want wikipedia readers to be aware of this very important area of research. The inequality introduced in the 1974 is the one used in early Bell test experiments. It is effectively very different from the CHSH, "visibility" and similar tests used in more recent experiments. It is not biased by any failure of "fair sampling". Only the '+' results are analysed, so whether or not the total of '+' and '-' results represents a fair sample is irrelevant.Caroline Thompson 17:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I placed the POV warning on this page for the same reasons as I did on the main "Bell's Theorem" article: a) Violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy by Caroline Thompson; and b) her self-promotion via references to her own articles (unbelievable!) which lack appropriate peer recognition. I will be working with others to correct this and other closely related articles. My intention is to concentrate on the main Bell article first, and then work out to the other articles such as this one.
I believe Caroline should limit her contribution to an article on Bell Test Loopholes. Caroline, this is not a forum for debate and I will not debate the merits of your position. As I locate and have time I will be working to undo your NPOV violations and self-references from every article except the Loopholes. However, you will need to place proper perspective even in that page. Wikipedia is not the place to serve as a pulpit for your unorthodox views.--DrChinese 19:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As I explained in the Bell's Theorem talk page, I do not consider that my pages infringe the wikipedia NPOV policy. They are fact, not opinion. Nor are they self-promotion, since the only reason I refer to my own papers is that they make accessible to a wider audience material already published in recognised journals. Is it really the intention of wikipedia to suppress descriptions of how the experiments work, of the inequalities actually used, or of the known flaws? Are you in favour of the kind of statement I have been trying to eliminate, for example statements that the evidence for quantum entanglement has become incontrovertible? If it is agreed that it is not so, then surely it is necessary to explain why? Caroline Thompson 21:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Think of the future a little bit.[edit]

Folks, Let's project forward 5 years; Wikipedia is huge. The Version 4.0 Editorial team is working on the next release to DVD. A noticeable number of scholars are attempting to put their work in Wikipedia 4.0. They are using the precedents that we set now. Now return to the present time. If we merely adhere to the current standards, I believe that Thompson is within the rules. What we arrive at by consensus today will affect future Wikipedia. It is time to think hard and not merely turn the crank on procedure. If we maintain standards of fairness and objectivity, we set a precedent for the future.

What we need to think about is how the different POV's play against each other. What we decide now also decides precedent for the future.

Currently, if the publication is on the web, it gets into Wikipedia. Thompson's publications are on paper, with the exception of one that we know of. So from Thompson's side, if another source (not a self-source) accepts that paper, it is acceptable for Wikipedia. All it takes is another web link (which is not under the total control of the contributor).

The rules of publication and the economics of publication are shifting. PLoS currently has a grant to publish many items on the web.

Libraries currently distrust Wikipedia for its lack of authoritative names. How we treat scholars today will determine our future. Some big names are already publishing under PLoS, which Wikipedia should pay attention to.

The universe of scholarly publications is very similar to TV; all it takes is a few stars to make a hit in academic circles. We should consider those factors. Ancheta Wis 22:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See the Critical theory article for the process which is playing out before us: Critical theory looks at the mechanics of [the] process of privilege and marginalization, and often thinks about the possibility of political action against this process. .
Consider also the mechanism of friendster.com where it takes the acceptance of a name by a friend of yours, in order for the name to propagate. If your friend does not accept your name, your circle of friends will not grow. Ancheta Wis 23:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality etc[edit]

I've shifted the {{NPOV}} tag (only) back to article space. This is according to accepted policy.

Meta: As a number of articles are affected, we should better standardize on one talk page for the general problem, and point ccontributors to that talk page.

On this article specifically: IMHO (re-)merging into CHSH inequality seems to be the best fate for this article, IMHO.

On Caroline Thompson's papers as references: It should be rather self-evident, that having a choice of papers, it would be preferable to cite other sources.

  1. It will clear Caroline of allegations of self promotion.
  2. It will take the (some) odor of quackery off the lhv POV. After all these papers are published in the Galilean Electrodynamics magazine. At least, it isn't the Ptolemean Astronomy magazine, but did you read some of the sample on-line papers?

Pjacobi 11:20, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

The reason for making this a separate page was to keep all pages of manageable length, plus it is quite ofen (within this little group of papers) desired to reference the CHSH and CH74 inequalities separately.
Re the references, I'd be only too happy to quote papers other than my own if any suitable ones existed! As I have explained a few times, the published papers are too long, too technical, or not readily available. It would be wonderful if everyone studying the Bell tests were to read all 30-odd pages of the Clauser and Shimony 1978 report, but where are they to get hold of a copy, who has the time, and who would understand them? So I list such papers, but advise readers in practice to rely on my own.
Re Galilean Electrodynamics: I should very much prefer to have published in PRL or PRA but (as you will find from my bibliography) this was not to be.Caroline Thompson 13:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removal of CHT self-references[edit]

Dr Chinese, I've reverted but keeping to your policy of removing all refs to my own work. I hope you do not object. I'm afraid I hit a wrong button and my comment on the edit was incomplete.Caroline Thompson 20:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, all, but I don't buy any of the logic about accepting Caroline's work. This isn't about Caroline's stature as a scientist or whether we can consider her work as "published". It is about the science involved and reasonably describing by today's standards. The fact is that her POV is not mainstream, her work is not normally cited and her contributions to WP are highly biased. Please see the Bell's Theorem talk page to see where all of this is at as I have no intention of giving duplication on each of the pages related to Bell, EPR and Aspect etc.
Caroline, I will remove all of your references whether you agree or not, the one exception being the Bell Test Loopholes page. I will continue to purge the strange emphasis on experiments and their "loopholes" that has been added to these pages to support your POV.
Can expositions of a theory that actively ignore the details of the experiments supposed to support it be termed "scientific"? Since when was my emphasis on experiments "strange"? I should say, rather, that from a scientific point of view it is the refusal to look at the flaws in the experiments that is "strange" scientific conduct! But why do I bother arguing? You are clearly going to back anyone, however ignorant, who can be seen as supporting the quantum mechanical point of view. Caroline Thompson 18:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
EPR, Bell's Theorem and its derivative forumulae is not the place to discuss hypothetical experimental loopholes ...
Sorry, but it is! One cannot usefully discuss actual Bell inequalities without mentioning the assumptions behind them and how they are applied in practice. The fact that they do not all involve exactly the same assumptions cannot be avoided. The later, CH74, inequality was derived in order to correct the perceived possibility of bias in the CHSH one. We inevitably come up against the fair sampling assumption, i.e. the best known loophole. Caroline Thompson 23:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
... You have the Loopholes page and I expect it will continue to be referenced from the Bell test experiments page where it belongs and makes some sense. In the meantime, why don't you put references to the Loopholes (and your anti-photon aether theories as well) in the Evolution section of WP? Or perhaps in French history? Maybe they will see it as relevant over there, because it is not relevant over here.

Consequences of Dr Chinese' latest edits[edit]

Dr Chinese, I had to revert because the page as it stood after your last edits

  • (a) removed the section that explained why C and H had invented their inequality and gave hints as to why different experiments use different ones. It was plain statement of fact, not my POV, and
  • (b) implied falsely that Aspect's experiments had been loophole-free.

And, of course, by removing the link to the Bell test loophole page you helped to ensure that nobody ever managed to navigate to it, thus blatantly taking the QM POV! I thought wikipedia was supposed to be neutral!

Caroline Thompson 19:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You should be aware by now. that this is not what neutrality means. The examples of policy are clear: Neutrality does not mean that WP is reduced to a sequence of bland statements of the kind "some say the moon is made of green cheese, others say not".CSTAR 20:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm ... Are you trying to say, CSTAR, that my support for local realism is not backed by the facts? To say that the loopholes can cause bias is no "bland statement", but merely the truth. Are you challenging this? If so, please tell me on what basis? Have you studied the actual experiments? Have you understood how the loopholes work? Caroline Thompson 21:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, non sequitur. Lethe | Talk
Caroline, why are you worried about discussing loopholes in Aspect's experiments in an article on CH74? Oh, I forgot, EVERY article is a forum for your biased POV.--DrChinese 23:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
DrChinese, I don't want to specifically discuss the CH74 inequality here, but I do want to let readers know the truth: that even in experiments where, due to use of CH74 rather than CHSH, there is no obvious involvement of the detection loophole, there is nevertheless room for local realist explanations. In the case of Aspect's experiments, the main loophole is one that is not very well known, namely the subtraction of accidentals. I can't help it that it is not well known! It is not totally unknown, though. Right from the start, experimenters have approached the matter with caution. The first experiment, in 1972, happened to have low accidental rates ...
But I did not mean to go into detail here, only to make it clear that Aspect's experiments were not "squeaky clean". He never claimed that they were. Caroline Thompson 17:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply (for the nth time) to Caroline Thompson[edit]

Well, I will resort to explaining this, all over I suppose

Please refer to what I actually said above, specifically about your comment on QM. You referred to it as POV, when as a matter of fact, QM is unquestionably the accepted scientific view of physical reality. Does anybody doubt that this is in fact the status of QM in the scientific community?

Therefore, it is not POV to repeat the assertions of QM as facts.

My view of the current position:
(a) The local realist POV is concerned with the matter of entanglement, not necessarily with the whole of QM.
{b) Within the small group of quantum theorists who would profess to be experts on the matter, none would say that entanglement has been conclusively demonstrated
(c) If you want to define the "scientific community" as those who read (and believe!) popular books on quantum theory, I suggest that you are in error. There are a lot of scientists out there who, whilst accepting the basic claims of QM, dispute the evidence for entanglement. They laugh at any suggestion that local realism could have been proved wrong.
Caroline Thompson 10:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact is (b), (c) are false, quite simply. The list of counterexamples is quite long.CSTAR 15:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This assertion is distinct from the following:

The basis of your support of local realism[edit]

Well of course I don't believe your support of local realism is supported by the facts! If I did why would we be having this argument? I don't care to speculate why you believe such support exists; the most likely reason would be misinterpretation of facts, but none of that is relevant anyway. I have no interest in discussing your beliefs, only in discussing WP policy as it pertains here.

Hmmm ... No comment, other than to suggest you read my articles more carefully.Caroline Thompson 10:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question of existence loopholes[edit]

To my knowledge, the existence of loopholes in Bell tests is not denied. I certainly don't. But clearly, judgements as to their importance do vary, and the overwhelming view is that they are not significant. See for instance, Shimony's Stanford Encyclopedia article with which you are familiar.

Since loopholes are an important ingredient in understanding Bell tests, it is important to write about them and nobody has requested the deletion of the Bell's test loopholes page.

Fair enough, but if you're going to allow the page to exist it would be as well to also allow links to it from all relevant pages. Caroline Thompson 10:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Relevant from your biased POV? Loopholes on Bell tests should be discussed relative to Bell test experiments. That's all it deserves and that's all it should get.--DrChinese 18:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question of the scientific status of QM[edit]

The scientific community accepts quantum mechanics is true, they claim, because it is true. I claim it is true. However. we can expand the list of possible causes of its acceptance.

Any or all of the following could explain the scientific status of QM

  1. The empirical facts of QM are actually true (The realist interpretation of the status of of QM)
  2. We (e.g. the scientific community) are deluded (mental deficiency cause of QM's acceptance)
  3. We are idiots (intellectual deficiency cause of QM's acceptance)
  4. We are all part of a conspiracy to suppress local realists or other theories (socio-political cause of QM's acceptance)

Now regardless of which are true, the fact about the status of QM still remains true. It may be sad, unfortunate, evil or whatever, but those are the facts. You have to accept those facts as far as wikipedia is concerned. The same could be said about other theories; phlogiston for example could in some possible world be the way heat propagates. Who knows maybe the power companies in this world are conspiring so that we not discover their source of phlogiston.

Now you are completely free to take out ads in papers or set up websites, endow a University chair or even try to start an armed rebellion to change this state of affairs (the rebellion will probably fail). But you are not going to change WP policy, unless Jimbo Wales keels over and dies and has left you or someone sympathetic to your position in charge. This is not a possibility you should count on.CSTAR 00:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I, for one, am unable to compromise my principles. I think the quantum physics community is deluded, having entrusted the Bell test experiments to a small band of people who, by historical accident, did not include any with sufficient imagination to see how local realist explanations could in fact explain what they saw. As I have mentioned several times, none of this elite band considered the evidence conclusive. The only reason I can see for belief in entanglement is the supposed universal success of all other areas of QM. Caroline Thompson 10:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your statements are an insult to the entire scientific community, whose open, collaborative and pricipled style of operation is its hallmark. The scientific method is self correcting, but your approach is not. You should retract your baseless accusations, which smack of bitterness and jealousy.--DrChinese 12:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See also: Pathological science. --Pjacobi 13:16, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

PS. Truth of quantum mechanics I mean truth in the minimal instrumentalist interpretation, not necessarily in any extension of this interpretation.CSTAR 00:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Caroline: request for clarification[edit]

Caroline, you seem to say two contradictory things

  1. the quantum physics community is deluded, having entrusted the Bell test experiments to a small band of people who, by historical accident, did not include any with sufficient imagination to see how local realist explanations could in fact explain what they saw.
  2. none of this elite band considered the evidence conclusive.

You mean

  • They actually were aware that their experimental evidence didn't support QM, as you say in (2) above
  • They produced bogus reports supporting QM anyway because they couldn't figure out how to explain the experiments via local realism, as you say in (1) above.

That is quite an accusation don't you think? You should at least produce a document with the evidence and possible motives. This would have more importance to the world than anything you or we could say about QM.CSTAR 15:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My two statements are not quite as contradictory as might at first appear. The community knew there were loopholes and hence that their experiments were not conclusive. In their published reports they do not hide this fact. They seem to have been unable, though, to see how to complete a local realist model that would give as good a fit to the observations as QM did. [Better computing facilities might have helped! Simulation programs?] They therefore provisionally accepted the QM model, in line with the current fashion in theoretical physics of accepting the theory that gives the best empirical agreement with results.
The idea that the observations gave conclusive support for QM was, as far as I can tell, an invention by the media that became accepted by other quantum theorists who had not themselves been directly involved in the Bell tests.
The original reports were thus not "bogus", but the media (and other quantum theorists) did not understand the loopholes and therefore glossed over them, leading to the creation of the myth that entanglement was here to stay. Caroline Thompson 18:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The media?[edit]

but the media (and other quantum theorists) did not understand the loopholes

The media? Since when is the media reporting on QM? Isn't that just wee bit conspiratorial? I mean, I can see why people say that media might have not been up to snuff (in the US at least and in the UK probably not too much different) on reports of WMD, but entanglement and QM?

Here is a quote from Aspect, who if anybody was involved in experimentation and Bell tests (unless his status has now been diminished and is currently considered a running dog for quantum theorists).

"Fort years after Bell's work, the importance of entanglement is clear to all physicists, but it is still difficult to swallow and reading Bell's papers remains the best way to penetrate the difficulties of that question"

That doesn't seem to suggest anything but " that entanglement was here to stay" when he wrote that.CSTAR 18:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not mean exactly "the media", but journals such as New Scientist. I did not become interested in the subject until 1993 or so and hence do not know what publicity was given to Aspect's experiments at the time, but can only assume that it was considerable. After all, many people publish in PRL but few become famous.
This intepretation of "the media" is not much better. I doubt the New Scientist has enough clout of any kind to cause any appreciable movement in ideas in science. I think your assessment of how ideas are determined is much too conspiratorial.CSTAR 23:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
With regards to your quotation, I have written to Aspect many times now re the loopholes -- especially the subtracion of accidentals, which (if its challengers are correct) makes such a large contribution to the test statistics. He has never replied. I don't know if this is because he thinks our challenge is nonsense or simply that he has a policy of never reading correspondence from people with no academic status. Either way, it seems likely that he does not quite understand how the loopholes work and has become progressively more convinced of the reality of entanglement.
"it seems likely that he does not quite understand how the loopholes work and has become progressively more convinced of the reality of entanglement."
And you do?
As a project in epistemology it would be more significant, I think, if you could propose a theory of why Aspect and others persist in these misconceptions despite (in your view) the lack of evidence. CSTAR 23:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(a) There are in practice social and economic pressures in force. To dispute QM at this point in history is to endanger ones career and to risk being branded a crank by ones peers.
(b) As I pointed out, the current fashion is to accept the theory that has been shown to give the "best agreement with the observations". Whether or not these observations were obtained in an unbiased manner does not enter the public version of the story and has, in the case of quantum entanglement, been conveniently swept under the carpet.
(c) In Aspect's case (and, I suspect, others) he has moved on. He did the EPR experiments back in 1980-82 but since then has been doing more "ordinary" physics. The last I heard it was something quite practical to do with the interaction of light with materials.
Is that enough? I have no time to write more now. Caroline Thompson 17:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're answering the wrong question. (I wasn't asking about psychology or sociology but epistemology). These papers presumably contain results which you claim aren't corroborated by the evidence; in particular, one would like to know what is written down to justify claim C when according to you not C is the conclusion?
"In Aspect's case (and, I suspect, others) he has moved on."
maybe you should move on to. You aren't going to get anywhere by telling people they haven't understood X or read my papers.CSTAR 04:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll win in the end CSTAR, since there is no experimental reason to think otherwise!
I'm sorry about my ignorance of the meaning of the word "epistmology". Anyway, as it happens, the relevant subjects are psychology and sociology. Put yourself in the place of an experimenter who has, 20-odd years ago, published a scientific paper supporting the status quo. This paper did contain a few words of doubt, but the public liked your conclusion and you began to get invited to conferences to talk about it, and found that your reputation was generally helping you in your career. What is your incentive to break off from that career in order to conduct a series of experiments to investigate those doubts? In the case of the Bell inequalities, it is hard for the human mind to remember their logic, much easier to listen to constant repetition of claims that they have been infringed and to forget the reasons why you ever doubted it. Let someone else take this risky step! Caroline Thompson 14:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Subtraction of accidentals[edit]

Aspect's paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402001, though giving an excellent description of his experiments, reveals, I think, some confusion about the assumptions needed for the CH74 and CHSH tests. It also possibly shows that the first of the possibilities is correct: he sticks to the argument he gave in his PhD thesis that justifies the subtraction. He says without any qualification: "the measured coincidence signal is thus the area of the peak [of the time spectrum]". By this he means the area after subtraction of a base ("accidental") rate represented by its shoulders. The truth here, though, is that the matter has never been settled. Caroline Thompson 22:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What page is that quote on?64.168.29.66 23:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's on page 21 of my copy, though the page might depend on the format. It's from section 9.2. Detection - Coincidence counting. A more complete quote is:
... This spectrum first shows a flat background due to accidental coincidences (between photons emitted by different atoms). The true coincidences (between photons emitted by the same atom) are displayed in the peak rising at the null-delay, and exponentially decaying with a time constant tau_r = 5 ns (lifetime of the intermediate state of the cascade). The measured coincidence signal is thus the area of the peak. Additionally, a standard coincidence circuit with a 19 ns coincidence window monitored the rate of coincidences around null delay, while a delayed-coincidence channel monitored the accidental rate. It was then possible to check that the true coincidence rate obtained by subtraction was equal to the signal in the peak of the time-delay spectrum ...
My own main paper on the subject is:
{ removed YET ANOTHER self-reference to Caroline's work, which appears to be the primary objective of her involvement with Wikipedia. The talk page of this article has nothing to do with Caroline's papers, and she has made a point of inserting her work and POV into unrelated articles in WP. She then references herself outside of WP as being cited in WP. It also gives her personal web pages more search power. She should not be allowed to insert such references using the subterfuge of legitimate debate when such debate has already occurred and been settled elsewhere in WP. I am sorry to have to take this step. Caroline, do not attempt to revert this as I will revert back. You have already littered the talk pages with plenty of your self-references, and you have been called on this point repeatedly over the past 6 months! Stop abusing the WP system for your own selfish personal objectives. --DrChinese 15:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) }
Caroline Thompson 22:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attention tags[edit]

I moved the attention tags to the article itself, which is where they are much more commonly placed (and where my cleanup bot is expecting them to be). I added accuracy to the list of concerns, because I find it highly likely that this page is essentially making an argument that quantum mechanics, as understood by the current scientific consensus, is incorrect. This would be a radical view, inappropriate to report as fact. But we need a physics expert to sort out accepted ideas from fringe ones here. -- Beland 03:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Beland: That is the whole point of the Bell tests -- to test whether or not quantum mechanics is correct. I know many people think these days that Bell was arguing that the world was in fact non-local (if you read books such as Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality" you will most certainly get this impression) but try reading his own papers and I think you will find a different story. Bell simply stated that if local reality is true it implies a certain inequality. QM violates this inequality. In the absence of a loophole-free Bell test the matter of whether or not QM is correct in this matter remains open.
Regarding the need for an expert opinion, yes indeed we could use one, but what we don't need is opinions based only on second and third-hand opinions of convinced quantum theorists. Clauser and Horne were, at least at the time of writing their 1974 paper, open minded on the subject. What we need is someone with an independent point of view who can spare the time to study carefully both that paper and the related parts of the 1978 physics report by Clauser and Shimony. 62.252.0.6 09:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
[The above was by me, BTW. I can't have been logged in. Caroline Thompson 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)]

Beland: On what grounds did you add the "totally disputed" tag? Are you disputing the fact that Bell's test ought to be able to tell whether QM or local realism is correct? The question does imply the possibility that QM may be incorrect, but nobody is stating this as a fact. It remains to be convincingly tested. Caroline Thompson 09:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Time to move on[edit]

Unfortunately Caroline Thompson died of cancer and won't be fighting for her point of view here any more. IMHO her point of view was somewhat crankish, since she strongly believed that quantum theory was not just a bit wrong, but completely wrong. She did not have much success getting her papers published in reputable journals. However she did have a very important point, which is that no single experiment done to date has violated Bell's inequalities under the experimental controls thought essential by John Bell himself (see his beautiful paper on Bertlmann's socks in his wonderful book "thinkable and unthinkable").

It is perfectly consistent to believe that quantum theory is true (or at least a wonderful approximation to truth) and at the same time to state that no convincing experiment has yet been done. A number of reputable physicists (at least, they were reputable till they started to expound this point of view) such as Iain Perceval and Emilio Santos have argued clearly and cogently that quantum physics itself could well prevent one ever to carry out the Bell experiment under Bell's stringent controls AND violate Bell's inequality. Without those stringent controls, the experiments merely confirm quantum theory, but do not disprove local realism. The fact that these eminent scientists are in danger of losing their reputation by expounding these views demonstrates that a large number of physicsts do not quite get the point of Bell's work and moreover have difficulty understanding delicate logical arguments. Recently I was discussing this issue with a sensible and friendly experimental physicist but I could not get my point across. He kept saying "but no one seriously doubts quantum physics any more", and I kept saying that I do not doubt quantum physics either; I am just saying that it is plausible that a succesful ideal Bell experiment can never be done; and he then repeated "but no one seriously doubts quantum physics any more"; ...

Gill110951 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should be immediately redirected to CHSH inequality. The history and content of this article will be available under the redirect for anyone wishing to refer to it to improve that page, and a note to this effect can be included on its talk page. Tim Shuba 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)