如果没有人看，月亮在那里吗？--对吉尔和兰巴尔的回答
Is the Moon there if nobody looks: A reply to Gill and Lambare
摘要：
在最近的预印本Gill和Lambare，批评我们的论文发表在物理学前沿。他们的批评是没有根据和误导的。他们定义了一个概率耦合，其中BI-CHSH持有所有有限的样本。这并不意味着BI-CHSH在我们的模型中成立，在我们的模型中，通过设置在4个不相交的专用概率空间上实现的相关随机变量来描述4个不相容的实验。这些随机变量的联合概率分布不存在，并且不能用于推导不等式。此外，他们的概率耦合是无用的，为后续的上下文模型，我们构建来描述贝尔测试的最终数据，并解释，在当地的因果关系的方式，报告违反不平等和明显违反无信号。无论是理想的EPRB实验的量子概率模型，还是本地现实和随机隐变量模型，都不能解释报告的非信号。因此，很明显，我们的模型扩展了标准隐变量模型中允许的可能测量的概率分布集。Gill和Lambare似乎不明白，我们的论文的主要信息，即在贝尔检验中，有限样本违反BI-CHSH和Eberhard不等式，无论这些检验设计和执行得多么好，都不允许怀疑客观外部物理现实和自然界中因果局部性的存在。我们的上下文模型不想绕过贝尔定理。因此，吉尔和兰巴尔论文的标题和结论：库普钦斯基的逃避路线的地方现实主义是不可用的是误导和无关的内容和结论，我们的论文。
英文摘要：
In a recent preprint Gill and Lambare, criticize our paper published in Frontiers in Physics. Their criticism is unfounded and misleading. They define a probabilistic coupling, in which BI-CHSH hold for all finite samples. It does not mean, that BI-CHSH hold in our model, in which four incompatible experiments are described by setting dependent random variables implemented on 4 disjoint dedicated probability spaces. A joint probability distribution of these random variables does not exist and may not be used to derive inequalities. Moreover, their probabilistic coupling is useless, for a subsequent contextual model, which we construct to describe final data from Bell tests and to explain, in a locally causal way, the reported violations of inequalities and apparent violations of no-signaling. Neither quantum probabilistic model of an ideal EPRB experiment nor local realistic and stochastic hidden variable models may explain reported non-signaling Therefore; it is obvious that our model extends the set of probability distributions of possible measurements allowed in the standard hidden variable models. Gill and Lambare seem not understand , the main message of our paper, that the violation of BI-CHSH and Eberhard inequalities by finite samples in Bell Tests, no matter how well these tests are designed and performed, does not allow for doubt regarding the existence of objective external physical reality and causal locality in Nature. Our contextual model does not want to circumvent Bell Theorem. Therefore the title of Gill and Lambare paper and the conclusion: Kupczynski's escape route for local realism is not available are misleading and have nothing to do with the content and conclusions of our paper.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
