Thank you for watching this video. Quick link to the next video in this series: Part 2: How QM Became Mainstream (1st Bell Test) ua-cam.com/video/atqMU-VztQ4/v-deo.html Overviews of the videos in this series: Part 1: Bell's Inequality (My Best Explanation) ua-cam.com/video/R4IYN4LVe5U/v-deo.html If you want a really good explanation of Bell's inequality, and how it can be applied to an experiment, then (hopefully) you should not need to look any further. Part 2: How QM Became Mainstream (1st Bell Test) ua-cam.com/video/atqMU-VztQ4/v-deo.html Discover how the first Bell test experiment transformed quantum mechanics from being a fringe subject to being accepted as part of mainstream physics. The very nature of reality had been called into question, but was this justified? The evidence appeared convincing at the time, but could it be that it was not scrutinized thoroughly enough because almost everyone secretly wanted it to be true? Part 3: The CRAP Loophole ua-cam.com/video/Y6l3aBh1zcw/v-deo.html The first 3 'loophole-free' Bell test experiments were published within 3 months of each other in 2015. They claimed to have confirmed spooky action at a distance by covering all the most plausible loopholes. But by using quantum random number generators instead of using algorithms, had they simply created a completely new loophole? Part 4: Delft - The 1st Loophole-free Bell Test ua-cam.com/video/9XHJfUeEmns/v-deo.html It was said to be the experiment that finally confirmed spooky action was real. It was claimed that the 80-year old debate was over; Einstein was declared to be wrong and Bohr was supposedly right! But how convincing was the result of this experiment? Was it really undeniable proof? Part 5: Has Proper Science Been Abandoned? ua-cam.com/video/gRtl6pAfCwg/v-deo.html It is not easy to construct a loophole-free Bell test experiment. The scientists don't tell us about how changing any particular part of such a complicated experiment would affect the result. But isn't this exactly what the scientists should be telling us? Instead they compete among themselves to see who can produce the most impressive violation of a Bell inequality. Has proper drill-down scientific investigation (to identify a cause) been abandoned?
Sorry, you lost me with the slide after 6:40. I don't know why, but I think there must be a better way to explain. But I don't give up and will still consume videos on that issue till I find the holy grail.
This one, @Karma Peny, is in my personal opinion the best explanation. So far, at least for me, this explanation outperformed the ones of world famous physicists. I would like to ask you though to add another one for the delayed quantum eraser, if you should be knowledgeable about that one as well.
Thank you very much for the high praise, I'm glad you appreciated my explanation. Regarding your request, I should probably address the double-slit first because the delayed-choice quantum eraser combines elements from the double-slit as well as entanglement experiments. In my opinion, the results of these experiments have been misinterpreted leading to wild and absurd claims. It is often claimed that light acts like a particle when one slit is used in the double-slit experiment but like a 'wave' when two slits are used. But if we closely examine the pattern produced from a single slit, it matches what we would expect from a wave travelling trough a single slit, it does not match what we would expect from a group of bullet-like particles. A lot of the bizarre claims of QM depend on the assertion that a choice is somehow mysteriously being made between acting as a particle and acting as a wave. In order to understand why anyone would think that a mysterious choice was being made we have to examine the history of this so-called wave-particle duality issue... In 1901 Max Planck proposed that the energy involved in black body radiation was quantized. In 1905, Einstein tackled the photoelectric effect in which it was found that the emission of an electron from a metal plate did not depend on the amount (or intensity) of light hitting its surface, but only on the frequency, which had to be over a certain amount to cause the effect. From this Einstein deduced that light was quantized in that there must be different particles of light which he called photons, and where each photon was carrying a certain quanta of energy. This seemed to suggest bullet-like particles. At this point we need to understand what exactly a ‘wave’ is. Our historic understanding of waves, such as water waves or sound waves, is as the propagation of energy through a medium via a variation in the oscillation of the constituent parts of that medium. So we explain a wave in terms of smaller particles. On the large scale we notice that the energy in a wave dissipates - it spreads out, but perhaps there are smallest constituent parts of a wave, each of which might consist of a finite amount of particles (possibly quantized particles of space) which do not dissipate the energy. In other words, the smallest part of a wave might be explained in terms of smallest-parts-of-a-wave each consisting of several particles, in which case there is no change of nature going on whereby a decision is being made to act as a particle or a wave. You might have heard the absurd claim that the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment was supposedly changing events that had already occurred in the past. This claim required you to buy-in to the notion that a particle-wave choice was somehow being made and that this choice was amazingly retrospectively being reversed after it had already taken place. In early 2021 I released my 'Disbeliever Part 8' video in which I suggested that the results of this experiment were being interpreted incorrectly. I suggested that when the interference pattern mysteriously seemed to re-appear, it might simply be because they were filtering out two different parts of the image. Nobody listened to me and very few people watched my video. However, towards the end of 2021 some quantum physicists released their own 'debunked' videos about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment in which they made pretty much the same point that I had made. Some of them even conceded that the double-slit experiment does not demonstrate particle-wave duality. And so sometimes, one or two experts can be big enough to admit that some of the far-fetched absurd-sounding ideas of QM might be wrong. I find that the simpler, more boring, more down-to-earth explanations are more acceptable to me than the mysterious absurd-sounding ones.
Karma Peny. I agree with you. The principles of choosing easy and perhaps boring over non-understandable and far fetched, is normal common sense. However, the managers of QM seems to spend all their efforts trying to get funding keeping a dream of quantum computing alive. Papers and some maths is the main result, if not taking into account a modern form of religion. I was happy, but laughed by schadenfreude when they had to retract the idiotic claim of a quantum eraser. The same will happen with the counterfactual computing: Normal people would for such a finding better conclude the premises, readings or maths is wrong. Not so in QM-churches. They rather spin in woods of wonder and stretch out some string therapy in between producing papers on top of papers to make a dream more efficient. Like to zero energy spend, as the claim is it computes not running. How so many is occupied not trying to get better grips of understanding reality, I do not know. But my bet is greed and a mental weakness called religion. Keep up your good work. I’ll watch the rest of your videos. Erik, Norway
@@KarmaPeny I'm in your boat, where determinism is king. In contrast to you, I find deterministic explanations SO satisfying... Like when I found out Copperfield was using mirrors to hide the elephant.
The four "loophole-free" experiments of 2015 aren't undeniable proof. Two of them have big deviations in the CHSH inequality but weak statistical significance because of much too small sample size. Two have enormous sample sizes and wonderful statistical significance but only a tiny absolute value deviation from the LR bound, namely 2.00001. Better experiments have since been done and more are coming. QM works, is correct to incredible accuracy. It tells us (I think) that irreducible randomness is part of the fabric of reality and this allows *coordination at a distance* which cannot be explained in a mechanistic way. Our brains call that "spooky" but I think that that is a limitation of our brains. We will not successfully merge relativity and quantum theory till we recognise that the ground level concepts need to be re-evaluated. Space and time *emerge* from a deeper physics and that physics has randomness woven in at ground level. Tough for our minds to picture but that's the point: it can't be pictured.
Hi Richard, You said: The four "loophole-free" experiments of 2015 aren't undeniable proof.
Thank you for the correction; you are right that 4 experiments were performed. However, there were only three teams and only three institutions involved.
From the dates of the published papers, I get the impression that there were only 2 truly original experiments (by Hensen et al. and Giustina et al.) and the other two (performed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Colorado by Shalm et al.) seem to have been attempts to reproduce the original 2 experiments. In the second NIST experiment they combined three types of (quasi-)random number generators. Sadly they missed the opportunity to completely avoid hardware random number generation and so all these experiments were susceptible to the CRAP loophole.
You said: QM works, is correct to incredible accuracy.
This is just regurgitation of the rhetoric that advocates of QM keep dishing up. The evidence is not there and yet these sound bites are continually banded about. Obviously the mathematics will be accurate because it was devised to fit the observations. In no way does it substantiate the QM viewpoint. All other waves we know about are particle-based. For example, sound is the transmission of energy through particles of air, where 'energy' is in the form of particles being closer together forming pressure variations. The equations might look like they use 'infinity' but this is a nonsense concept that appears to be useful to approximate (very accurately) the entirely finite particle-based wave. Instead of trying to find a particle-based explanations we have bizarre QM interpretations of the double slit and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments. The QM arguments rely on the weird idea that somehow a 'choice' is being made about how a small particle will behave.
It is too ridiculous to take seriously. The particle itself, or possibly an indescribable aspect of the universe, somehow knows that the particle is approaching two slits. What's more, it knows about the apparatus on the other side of the slits and it knows if this apparatus and the detection mechanism would allow us to determine which of the two slits the particle went through. It can apparently also see forwards (or backwards) in time, so we can't fool it by quickly changing the detection apparatus after the particle is on the other side of the slits.
You will not be surprised that I do NOT believe that somehow a mysterious 'choice' is being made between acting as a particle and acting as something different (that is laughingly called a 'wave of probability'). QM is not science; it is a belief system where followers believe in mysterious mystical waves of probability.
You said: Tough for our minds to picture but that's the point: it can't be pictured.
This touches on the muddled logic behind QM which says that there are things that can only be understood in terms of mathematics. This is an outrageous position that appears to attribute mystical powers to mathematics.
But mathematics is an invention of mankind. We can use the symbols 1 + 1 = 2 to represent the activity of adding 1 apple to a fruit bowl that already contains 1 apple. The same symbols could be used to represent other objects instead of apples. This means that they can have a generic meaning. It does not mean that mathematics has somehow revealed to us that we can do this addition operation with other objects. But sadly this is how many people now view mathematics. They think it is some mystical thing detached from all physical reality which can mysteriously provide us with information about things in the real world. They go on to accept that it can tell us about things that the mind cannot comprehend!
To defer explanation to mathematics is to give up on trying to understand the physical world. For a better understanding of how mathematics came to be based on mysticism please see these videos:
Infinity Crisis in Maths: What Is A Number? Does Anyone Know? ua-cam.com/video/OghUe5C5cDU/v-deo.html
Infinity Crisis in Maths: What Is Mathematics? Does Anyone Know? ua-cam.com/video/0AargMjeW_4/v-deo.html
Yeah, it's amazing the number of places where the mathematics of simple harmonic motion apply. Yet no one would mistake a pendulum for a spring for an AC generator. So maybe particles aren't "strings" just because of a similarity in some equations, and we shouldn't waste the careers of another generation of physicists in chasing a flawed premise.
locality with hidden variables means imho the opposit: there has happened something before measurement - so that prior to measurement the outcome is potentially given
This only works in a framework of superdeterminism, which is not really a testable hypothesis. It presumes that if you the universe evolves in a way going back to the Big Bang when everything was in local causal contact with each other but also with restrictions applied to its initial configuration, then you could have locality _and_ hidden variables. But in practice, you could not know the initial configuration of the universe, so you would have to presume the particles already "know" to configure themselves in a particular way at the start of an experiment even if they are at a distance, meaning in practice it becomes either untestable, or mathematically equivalent to a nonlocal hidden variable theory.
Here's a taste of what's coming up over the next 4 days: Part 2: How QM Became Mainstream (1st Bell Test) Discover how the first Bell test experiment transformed quantum mechanics from being a fringe subject to being accepted as part of mainstream physics. The very nature of reality had been called into question, but was this justified? The evidence appeared convincing at the time, but could it be that it was not scrutinized thoroughly enough because almost everyone secretly wanted it to be true? Part 3: The CRAP Loophole The first 3 'loophole-free' Bell test experiments were published within 3 months of each other in 2015. They claimed to have confirmed spooky action at a distance by covering all the most plausible loopholes. But by using quantum random number generators instead of using algorithms, had they simply created a completely new loophole? Part 4: Delft - The 1st Loophole-free Bell Test It was said to be the experiment that finally confirmed spooky action was real. It was claimed that the 80-year old debate was over; Einstein was declared to be wrong and Bohr was supposedly right! But how convincing was the result of this experiment? Was it really undeniable proof? Part 5: Has Proper Science Been Abandoned? It is not easy to construct a loophole-free Bell test experiment. The scientists don't tell us about how changing any particular part of such a complicated experiment would affect the result. But isn't this exactly what the scientists should be telling us? Instead they compete among themselves to see who can produce the most impressive violation of a Bell inequality. Has proper drill-down scientific investigation (to identify a cause) been abandoned?
Thank you for watching this video. Quick link to the next video in this series:
Part 2: How QM Became Mainstream (1st Bell Test) ua-cam.com/video/atqMU-VztQ4/v-deo.html
Overviews of the videos in this series:
Part 1: Bell's Inequality (My Best Explanation) ua-cam.com/video/R4IYN4LVe5U/v-deo.html
If you want a really good explanation of Bell's inequality, and how it can be applied to an experiment, then (hopefully) you should not need to look any further.
Part 2: How QM Became Mainstream (1st Bell Test) ua-cam.com/video/atqMU-VztQ4/v-deo.html
Discover how the first Bell test experiment transformed quantum mechanics from being a fringe subject to being accepted as part of mainstream physics. The very nature of reality had been called into question, but was this justified? The evidence appeared convincing at the time, but could it be that it was not scrutinized thoroughly enough because almost everyone secretly wanted it to be true?
Part 3: The CRAP Loophole ua-cam.com/video/Y6l3aBh1zcw/v-deo.html
The first 3 'loophole-free' Bell test experiments were published within 3 months of each other in 2015. They claimed to have confirmed spooky action at a distance by covering all the most plausible loopholes. But by using quantum random number generators instead of using algorithms, had they simply created a completely new loophole?
Part 4: Delft - The 1st Loophole-free Bell Test ua-cam.com/video/9XHJfUeEmns/v-deo.html
It was said to be the experiment that finally confirmed spooky action was real. It was claimed that the 80-year old debate was over; Einstein was declared to be wrong and Bohr was supposedly right! But how convincing was the result of this experiment? Was it really undeniable proof?
Part 5: Has Proper Science Been Abandoned? ua-cam.com/video/gRtl6pAfCwg/v-deo.html
It is not easy to construct a loophole-free Bell test experiment. The scientists don't tell us about how changing any particular part of such a complicated experiment would affect the result. But isn't this exactly what the scientists should be telling us? Instead they compete among themselves to see who can produce the most impressive violation of a Bell inequality. Has proper drill-down scientific investigation (to identify a cause) been abandoned?
Sorry, you lost me with the slide after 6:40. I don't know why, but I think there must be a better way to explain. But I don't give up and will still consume videos on that issue till I find the holy grail.
I still dont get it clearly
I was really looking for a video about bell inequality. You explained it the best way possible.
This one, @Karma Peny, is in my personal opinion the best explanation. So far, at least for me, this explanation outperformed the ones of world famous physicists.
I would like to ask you though to add another one for the delayed quantum eraser, if you should be knowledgeable about that one as well.
Thank you very much for the high praise, I'm glad you appreciated my explanation. Regarding your request, I should probably address the double-slit first because the delayed-choice quantum eraser combines elements from the double-slit as well as entanglement experiments.
In my opinion, the results of these experiments have been misinterpreted leading to wild and absurd claims. It is often claimed that light acts like a particle when one slit is used in the double-slit experiment but like a 'wave' when two slits are used. But if we closely examine the pattern produced from a single slit, it matches what we would expect from a wave travelling trough a single slit, it does not match what we would expect from a group of bullet-like particles.
A lot of the bizarre claims of QM depend on the assertion that a choice is somehow mysteriously being made between acting as a particle and acting as a wave. In order to understand why anyone would think that a mysterious choice was being made we have to examine the history of this so-called wave-particle duality issue...
In 1901 Max Planck proposed that the energy involved in black body radiation was quantized. In 1905, Einstein tackled the photoelectric effect in which it was found that the emission of an electron from a metal plate did not depend on the amount (or intensity) of light hitting its surface, but only on the frequency, which had to be over a certain amount to cause the effect. From this Einstein deduced that light was quantized in that there must be different particles of light which he called photons, and where each photon was carrying a certain quanta of energy. This seemed to suggest bullet-like particles.
At this point we need to understand what exactly a ‘wave’ is. Our historic understanding of waves, such as water waves or sound waves, is as the propagation of energy through a medium via a variation in the oscillation of the constituent parts of that medium. So we explain a wave in terms of smaller particles.
On the large scale we notice that the energy in a wave dissipates - it spreads out, but perhaps there are smallest constituent parts of a wave, each of which might consist of a finite amount of particles (possibly quantized particles of space) which do not dissipate the energy. In other words, the smallest part of a wave might be explained in terms of smallest-parts-of-a-wave each consisting of several particles, in which case there is no change of nature going on whereby a decision is being made to act as a particle or a wave.
You might have heard the absurd claim that the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment was supposedly changing events that had already occurred in the past. This claim required you to buy-in to the notion that a particle-wave choice was somehow being made and that this choice was amazingly retrospectively being reversed after it had already taken place.
In early 2021 I released my 'Disbeliever Part 8' video in which I suggested that the results of this experiment were being interpreted incorrectly. I suggested that when the interference pattern mysteriously seemed to re-appear, it might simply be because they were filtering out two different parts of the image. Nobody listened to me and very few people watched my video.
However, towards the end of 2021 some quantum physicists released their own 'debunked' videos about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment in which they made pretty much the same point that I had made. Some of them even conceded that the double-slit experiment does not demonstrate particle-wave duality. And so sometimes, one or two experts can be big enough to admit that some of the far-fetched absurd-sounding ideas of QM might be wrong. I find that the simpler, more boring, more down-to-earth explanations are more acceptable to me than the mysterious absurd-sounding ones.
Karma Peny.
I agree with you. The principles of choosing easy and perhaps boring over non-understandable and far fetched, is normal common sense.
However, the managers of QM seems to spend all their efforts trying to get funding keeping a dream of quantum computing alive. Papers and some maths is the main result, if not taking into account a modern form of religion.
I was happy, but laughed by schadenfreude when they had to retract the idiotic claim of a quantum eraser.
The same will happen with the counterfactual computing: Normal people would for such a finding better conclude the premises, readings or maths is wrong. Not so in QM-churches. They rather spin in woods of wonder and stretch out some string therapy in between producing papers on top of papers to make a dream more efficient. Like to zero energy spend, as the claim is it computes not running.
How so many is occupied not trying to get better grips of understanding reality, I do not know. But my bet is greed and a mental weakness called religion.
Keep up your good work. I’ll watch the rest of your videos.
Erik,
Norway
Thank you for a great comment. I hope you enjoy my other videos.
@@KarmaPeny I'm in your boat, where determinism is king. In contrast to you, I find deterministic explanations SO satisfying... Like when I found out Copperfield was using mirrors to hide the elephant.
The four "loophole-free" experiments of 2015 aren't undeniable proof. Two of them have big deviations in the CHSH inequality but weak statistical significance because of much too small sample size. Two have enormous sample sizes and wonderful statistical significance but only a tiny absolute value deviation from the LR bound, namely 2.00001. Better experiments have since been done and more are coming. QM works, is correct to incredible accuracy. It tells us (I think) that irreducible randomness is part of the fabric of reality and this allows *coordination at a distance* which cannot be explained in a mechanistic way. Our brains call that "spooky" but I think that that is a limitation of our brains. We will not successfully merge relativity and quantum theory till we recognise that the ground level concepts need to be re-evaluated. Space and time *emerge* from a deeper physics and that physics has randomness woven in at ground level. Tough for our minds to picture but that's the point: it can't be pictured.
Hi Richard, You said: The four "loophole-free" experiments of 2015 aren't undeniable proof.
Thank you for the correction; you are right that 4 experiments were performed. However, there were only three teams and only three institutions involved.
From the dates of the published papers, I get the impression that there were only 2 truly original experiments (by Hensen et al. and Giustina et al.) and the other two (performed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Colorado by Shalm et al.) seem to have been attempts to reproduce the original 2 experiments. In the second NIST experiment they combined three types of (quasi-)random number generators. Sadly they missed the opportunity to completely avoid hardware random number generation and so all these experiments were susceptible to the CRAP loophole.
You said: QM works, is correct to incredible accuracy.
This is just regurgitation of the rhetoric that advocates of QM keep dishing up. The evidence is not there and yet these sound bites are continually banded about. Obviously the mathematics will be accurate because it was devised to fit the observations. In no way does it substantiate the QM viewpoint.
All other waves we know about are particle-based. For example, sound is the transmission of energy through particles of air, where 'energy' is in the form of particles being closer together forming pressure variations. The equations might look like they use 'infinity' but this is a nonsense concept that appears to be useful to approximate (very accurately) the entirely finite particle-based wave.
Instead of trying to find a particle-based explanations we have bizarre QM interpretations of the double slit and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments. The QM arguments rely on the weird idea that somehow a 'choice' is being made about how a small particle will behave.
It is too ridiculous to take seriously. The particle itself, or possibly an indescribable aspect of the universe, somehow knows that the particle is approaching two slits. What's more, it knows about the apparatus on the other side of the slits and it knows if this apparatus and the detection mechanism would allow us to determine which of the two slits the particle went through. It can apparently also see forwards (or backwards) in time, so we can't fool it by quickly changing the detection apparatus after the particle is on the other side of the slits.
You will not be surprised that I do NOT believe that somehow a mysterious 'choice' is being made between acting as a particle and acting as something different (that is laughingly called a 'wave of probability'). QM is not science; it is a belief system where followers believe in mysterious mystical waves of probability.
You said: Tough for our minds to picture but that's the point: it can't be pictured.
This touches on the muddled logic behind QM which says that there are things that can only be understood in terms of mathematics. This is an outrageous position that appears to attribute mystical powers to mathematics.
But mathematics is an invention of mankind. We can use the symbols 1 + 1 = 2 to represent the activity of adding 1 apple to a fruit bowl that already contains 1 apple. The same symbols could be used to represent other objects instead of apples. This means that they can have a generic meaning. It does not mean that mathematics has somehow revealed to us that we can do this addition operation with other objects. But sadly this is how many people now view mathematics. They think it is some mystical thing detached from all physical reality which can mysteriously provide us with information about things in the real world. They go on to accept that it can tell us about things that the mind cannot comprehend!
To defer explanation to mathematics is to give up on trying to understand the physical world. For a better understanding of how mathematics came to be based on mysticism please see these videos:
Infinity Crisis in Maths: What Is A Number? Does Anyone Know?
ua-cam.com/video/OghUe5C5cDU/v-deo.html
Infinity Crisis in Maths: What Is Mathematics? Does Anyone Know?
ua-cam.com/video/0AargMjeW_4/v-deo.html
Yeah, it's amazing the number of places where the mathematics of simple harmonic motion apply. Yet no one would mistake a pendulum for a spring for an AC generator. So maybe particles aren't "strings" just because of a similarity in some equations, and we shouldn't waste the careers of another generation of physicists in chasing a flawed premise.
@@KarmaPeny Agreed. While math can lay a path to completion, that path may not always be the best path, nor the only path.
I also believe in locality with hidden variables. There must be something happening when there is an interaction/measurement
locality with hidden variables means imho the opposit: there has happened something before measurement - so that prior to measurement the outcome is potentially given
This only works in a framework of superdeterminism, which is not really a testable hypothesis. It presumes that if you the universe evolves in a way going back to the Big Bang when everything was in local causal contact with each other but also with restrictions applied to its initial configuration, then you could have locality _and_ hidden variables. But in practice, you could not know the initial configuration of the universe, so you would have to presume the particles already "know" to configure themselves in a particular way at the start of an experiment even if they are at a distance, meaning in practice it becomes either untestable, or mathematically equivalent to a nonlocal hidden variable theory.
Aw man, I was expecting more, guess I gotta wait lol
Here's a taste of what's coming up over the next 4 days:
Part 2: How QM Became Mainstream (1st Bell Test)
Discover how the first Bell test experiment transformed quantum mechanics from being a fringe subject to being accepted as part of mainstream physics. The very nature of reality had been called into question, but was this justified? The evidence appeared convincing at the time, but could it be that it was not scrutinized thoroughly enough because almost everyone secretly wanted it to be true?
Part 3: The CRAP Loophole
The first 3 'loophole-free' Bell test experiments were published within 3 months of each other in 2015. They claimed to have confirmed spooky action at a distance by covering all the most plausible loopholes. But by using quantum random number generators instead of using algorithms, had they simply created a completely new loophole?
Part 4: Delft - The 1st Loophole-free Bell Test
It was said to be the experiment that finally confirmed spooky action was real. It was claimed that the 80-year old debate was over; Einstein was declared to be wrong and Bohr was supposedly right! But how convincing was the result of this experiment? Was it really undeniable proof?
Part 5: Has Proper Science Been Abandoned?
It is not easy to construct a loophole-free Bell test experiment. The scientists don't tell us about how changing any particular part of such a complicated experiment would affect the result. But isn't this exactly what the scientists should be telling us? Instead they compete among themselves to see who can produce the most impressive violation of a Bell inequality. Has proper drill-down scientific investigation (to identify a cause) been abandoned?