by thray » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:51 pm
Joy,
Einstein is supposed to have said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
I don't bother to attempt posting at RW, so I'll reproduce it here, your post of 9 Jan 0732:
Lord Jestocost
“No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics“.There exists no proof in the literature of the above claim. Indeed, there cannot possibly exist a proof of such a blanket statement with undefinable terms such as “physical theory” and “local hidden variables.” In 1964 John Bell attempted to prove the above claim by claiming that it was impossible to reproduce the correlations E(a, b) = -a.b predicted by quantum mechanics for a specific quantum state, namely for the singlet state or the EPR-Bohm state. It is however easy to prove that:
(1) Bell’s supposed proof for the above specific claim is flawed, because the CHSH inequality on which his proof is based can be derived without assuming locality and realism, as done in the appendix of this paper:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12655/ . There the CHSH inequality is derived by assuming only that Bob can measure along b and b’ simultaneously while Alice measures along either a or a’, and likewise Alice can measure along a and a’ simultaneously while Bob measures along either b or b’, *without assuming locality*. The experimental “violations” of CHSH inequality therefore only means impossibility of measuring along b and b’ (or along a and a’) simultaneously.
And
(2) It turns out that, contrary to Bell’s claim, the singlet correlations E(a, b) = -a.b can in fact be reproduced using purely local functions A(a, h) and B(b, h), in a manifestly local and realistic manner. A detailed and explicit local-realistic derivation of the correlations -a.b is presented in the paper withdrawn by Annals of Physics,
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 , which also includes references to several event-by-event computer simulations of the correlations. The code and a plot of one such simulation is available at the following link:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=296#p7322 .
Thus Bell’s blanket claim quoted above (a) remains unprovable, (b) is intrinsically flawed for the reason explained in (1), and (c) Bell’s specific claim that it is impossible to reproduce the singlet correlations E(a, b) = -a.b local-realistically also turns out to be false, as evident from the theoretical counterexample and its event-by-event simulations presented in (2) above."
Apparently, the referees at AoP have no grandmothers they can run this by. And they don't recognize the profound significance of your observation: "No measurement was ever made except in some direction" -- which is something that everyone's grandmother understands.
Joy,
Einstein is supposed to have said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
I don't bother to attempt posting at RW, so I'll reproduce it here, your post of 9 Jan 0732:
[i][b]Lord Jestocost[/b]
“No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics“.[/i]
There exists no proof in the literature of the above claim. Indeed, there cannot possibly exist a proof of such a blanket statement with undefinable terms such as “physical theory” and “local hidden variables.” In 1964 John Bell attempted to prove the above claim by claiming that it was impossible to reproduce the correlations E(a, b) = -a.b predicted by quantum mechanics for a specific quantum state, namely for the singlet state or the EPR-Bohm state. It is however easy to prove that:
(1) Bell’s supposed proof for the above specific claim is flawed, because the CHSH inequality on which his proof is based can be derived without assuming locality and realism, as done in the appendix of this paper: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12655/ . There the CHSH inequality is derived by assuming only that Bob can measure along b and b’ simultaneously while Alice measures along either a or a’, and likewise Alice can measure along a and a’ simultaneously while Bob measures along either b or b’, *without assuming locality*. The experimental “violations” of CHSH inequality therefore only means impossibility of measuring along b and b’ (or along a and a’) simultaneously.
And
(2) It turns out that, contrary to Bell’s claim, the singlet correlations E(a, b) = -a.b can in fact be reproduced using purely local functions A(a, h) and B(b, h), in a manifestly local and realistic manner. A detailed and explicit local-realistic derivation of the correlations -a.b is presented in the paper withdrawn by Annals of Physics, https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 , which also includes references to several event-by-event computer simulations of the correlations. The code and a plot of one such simulation is available at the following link:
http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=296#p7322 .
Thus Bell’s blanket claim quoted above (a) remains unprovable, (b) is intrinsically flawed for the reason explained in (1), and (c) Bell’s specific claim that it is impossible to reproduce the singlet correlations E(a, b) = -a.b local-realistically also turns out to be false, as evident from the theoretical counterexample and its event-by-event simulations presented in (2) above."
Apparently, the referees at AoP have no grandmothers they can run this by. And they don't recognize the profound significance of your observation: "No measurement was ever made except in some direction" -- which is something that everyone's grandmother understands.
