> Unfortunately I have not access to original Bell's paper. I have

I don't know if any of Bell's papers are on the web, other than maybe at

> possibility to order them but it would be too long. I just have a

> couple of review articles on this subject but none of Bell's papers.

> Where can I download them in e-form? I can imagine that the physical

the site for Phys Rev.

> result could be obtained in different ways. But it is vital to

Yes.

> understand the minimal premises needed to derive it. Moreover as a

> of "necessary and sufficient conditions". Besides take a look at

I can't find any quant-ph/001210. That must be the wrong ref number.

> quant-ph/001210 I just give a little extract (math symbols in LaTex,

> "

Right. So what can be represented in that form? Anything that is

> Consider a pair of spin one-half particles formed in the singlet spin

> state and

> moving freely in opposite directions. If one neglects the space part

> of the

> wave function then the quantum mechanical correlation of two spins in

> the

> singlet state spin is

>

> $E_{spin}(a; b) = <\psi_{spin}|a\cdot \sigma \otimes b\cdot \sigma

> |\psi_{spin}> =

> -a \cdot b$

>

> Here $a$ and $b$ are two unit vectors in three-dimensional space and

> $\sigma =

> (\sigma_{1}; \sigma_{2}; \sigma_{3})$ are the Pauli matrices.

>

> Bell's theorem states that the function

>

> $E_{spin}(a; b)$ can not be represented in the form

>

> $P(a,b)=\int A(a,\lambda)B(b,\lambda)d\rho(\lambda)$

explainable *locally*. I don't know exactly what you mean by the above

showing how qm probabilities are "nonKolmogorovian". All probabilities

satisfy Kolmogorov's axioms. If they didn't--what would that mean?--they

would be useless to us.

Trying to understand the results of EPR-Bell experiments by denying basic

mathematical truths (like the Kolmogorov axioms) is like trying to

understand why balloons fly by denying that they are material objects.

It's just throwing words at the problem without really facing up to it.

> > I don't deny FTL influences. I think BIs prove the existence of FTL.

BIs show that there is an apparent conflict between relativistic causality

> > That's all I mean by "non-locality"

>

> What about causality?

and qm. Now this may only be an apparent conflict (see

http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/ed_tachy.htm), or it may be a

real one. But, again, we must fact up to it.

>

No. The fact that they can perform the measurements fast enough to

> > That's a different issue. I'm talking about the fact that in a

> measurement

> >

> > A --> P A P

> >

> > where P is a projector depending on the measurement result. Since

> neither

> > A nor P are local objects, this generally involves a non-local

> change in

> > the system.

>

> Sorry but it's mere a formal scheme (in operator approach). Do you

> mean that the measurement

> is taken instanteneously? But it only seems so because of

> nonrelativistic approximation.

actually verify the qm violation of BIs in the lab means that this

formalism is sufficient. And it is not merely a formal scheme. If you want

to use Heisenberg operators, that is fine. But then you have to specify

what happens to them after one makes a measurement. And what happens to

them is exactly A-->PAP.

> But it is impossible. Do you know some (obviously pure speculative)

Whether or not SR forbids tachyons in general it certainly forbids them

> papers on entanglement of tachyons? Since SRT does not forbid their

> existence it would be interesting to analyse the possibility of their

> entanglement along with probable effects.

from interacting with normal particles (or else one gets causal

paradoxes). It may be different in GR, though (see above link).

> So if we knew the configuration of an apparatus we would foresee the

Yes.

> result of the measurement for sure like in classical mechanics? But in

> QM it's impossible not (only) because of enormous amount of

If that is what you mean by calling it phenomenological, then yes.

> information (like in class statistical mech) but because of \hbar=/=0

> which prohibits the determination of state of the ssystem in such

> CM-dynamic deterministic way. That is why I asked at the beginning

> about the status of Plank's constant in dBB. It appears that dBB treat

> it as phenomenological (intermediate) quantity.

However, I don't think the term "phenomenological" properly refers to

"anything which doesn't put fundamental restrictions on our knowledge".> As far as I remember it always appears due to subtraction of one

The Casimir force = -dE/dx, where x is the separation between the

> infinity from another.

metal plates and E is the ground state energy of the vacuum between

the plates.

By the way, Kasimir is an incorrect spelling. He signed his papers H.

B. G. Casimir which stands for Hendrik Brugt Gerhard Casimir. He

worked for Phillips corporation in Netherlands.

> I hope that in correct theory no such tricks will be used.

I also hope that a fully correct theory will be developed in my

>It seems to me that the situation is close to that in claculus at 17-

>18 centuries when such things as

> 1-1+1-1+1...=0=1+(-1+1)+(-1+1)...=1=-1+(-1+1)+...=-1

> and semiempirical results with infinitesimals and infinities were

> widely discussed with heat.

lifetime. I imagine all sorts of great physics will come from it.