Talk:Bell inequalities

I've moved the section on Bell inequalities from the Bell test experiments page where CSTAR had recently put it. It was originally part of the Bell's Theorem page (the edition current at the beginning of 2005). I trust the move will not be regarded as controversial. Caroline Thompson 12:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, I consider it to be a very bad idea to split off just another page. --Pjacobi 20:57, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)


 * The material here was perfectly OK as part of the previous version of Bell's theorem, but CSTAR did not want it in his new one and shifted it into Bell test experiments. Some of the inequalities are known to be unsuitable for use in real experiments, though, and, besides, the details of the derivations are not essential reading for someone interested only in the experimental tests. This was not the right place for them. Caroline Thompson 22:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * CT is doing it again. She is slowly splitting the Bell pages with the view to insertion of her biased POV.  This can be seen by recent edits, some of which I just eliminated.  She is hoping that we will lose track of this page.  As Pjacobi states, there is no reason for yet ANOTHER Bell related page that simply states much the same as the existing one.  There are plenty already, and the addition of another means more for us to watch for CT's shennagins.  CT, you are being deceptive as to your intentions, and I will probably delete this page if someone doesn't beat me to it.  The only question is what to do with CSTAR's material first; there are also a few links that will need to be changed back.  As has been stated previously, CT's edits amount to vandalism.--DrChinese 17:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dr Chinese, to regard my latest edits as vandalism is absurd. If anything, it is CSTAR's revision of the Bell's Theorem page that is vandalism! If you don't want a separate Bell inequalities page, I suggest you persuade CSTAR to put the central part -- the actual inequalities -- back in the Bell's Theorem page.

I notice (from CSTAR's talk page) that Pjacobi regards all my latest edits as unnecessary and a waste of time for the "experts". For his information, all I have been doing is attempting to rationalise the pages, in line with CSTAR's edits. They were formerly a consistent set -- one on which I had expended considerable thought and time.

As for my POV view being biased, I suggest that all I am doing is presenting facts. What is "biased" about the sentences you have just deleted? I had said:


 * It has been assumed, though, that the sample of detected pairs is representative of the pairs emitted by the source. That this assumption may not be true comprises the "fair sampling" loophole. From a local realist point of view, this and other loopholes mean that the matter remains open.

This is purely a matter of fact. How can you deny that local realists think (one might even say know!) that the matter is open? When you look into the question you find (as witnessed by the continuing stream of "loophole-free" proposals) that the quantum theorists know this too.

Incidentally, I trust you have recognised that my present edits cannot be construed as "self-promotion". I am not making any attempt to re-introduce references to my own work. As I've said, all I'm doing is presenting facts. I thought you had agree that wikipedia should be not be presenting disinformation -- it should not, for instance say without qualification that violation of the CHSH inequality necessarily means that local realism has been refuted?

Anyway, I feel the inclusion of the sentences you have just deleted is justified to counter the confusing and irrelevant material that is now included in the Bell's Theorem page.Caroline Thompson 18:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion
This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/Bell inequalities. The final result was Redirect to Bell's inequalities. --Deathphoenix 14:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Make that a redirect to Bell's theorem. The Bell's inequalities article is itself a redirect to Bell's theorem. --Deathphoenix 15:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, but what about the material in Bell inequalities, and what about the link in Bell's theorem to Bell inequalities, which now goes nowhere useful? Is the idea that we now take the material on the Bell inequalities and insert it into the Bell's theorem page? As it stands, the page tells us next to nothing.  I still think, incidentally, that a better solution would have been to revert the whole set of pages to those of about January 3, 2005, before CSTAR destroyed their structure. Caroline Thompson 18:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * (CCed from Caroline Thompson's talk page)


 * If the notation used in Bell's theorem is inconsistent with the notation used in other inequality articles, then the best thing to do is to change the notation on Bell's theorem to match the notation used in the other articles. As for merging the information from the deleted article into the redirected article, the VfD consensus is to redirect the article without merging its contents, so that's what I did. Cheers --Deathphoenix 19:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In addition, I removed the recursive link to Bell's inequalities from Bell's theorem. Thanks for the heads up. For some reason, it didn't show up under the What links here page. --Deathphoenix 19:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)