Talk:Clauser and Horne's 1974 Bell test

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I've shifted the  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. 
# It will clear Caroline of allegations of self promotion.
# 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality etc 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The basis of your support of local realism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The question of existence loopholes 

message: 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
#The empirical facts of QM are actually true (The realist interpretation of the status of of QM)
# We (e.g. the scientific community) are deluded (mental deficiency cause of QM's acceptance)
# We are idiots (intellectual deficiency cause of QM's acceptance)
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The question of the scientific status of QM 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Time to move on