by Yablon » Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:27 pm
FrediFizzx wrote:From,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theoremBell himself wrote: "If [a hidden variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local. This is what the theorem says." John Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 65.
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."
Since we have a physical theory of a local hidden variable that produces all the predictions of quantum mechanics, that theorem is false and can only be a theory.
Starting with these "dictionary" definitions, let me give you my take:
Quantum mechanics
by definition reproduces all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell says that no locally realistic hidden variables (LRHV) theory can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics, most notably, the strong singlet correlations. Absolutely assumed and implicit in Bell's theorem is the conclusion that QM itself is NOT itself an LRHV theory.
IF QM itself could be shown to be an LRHV theory even though nobody knew that before, then Bell's Theorem itself would not be wrong. What would be wrong are his implicit assumptions about the nature of quantum mechanics.
Cast in these terms, what I am attempting to do in
https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -4.1-1.pdf and what will be the future development of this, is to determine whether QM itself really
IS an LRHV theory, unbeknownst to the world. In these first four sections I have already laid out why -- at least as to intrinsic spin used as a simplest example of the uncertainty principle -- QM is realistic and complete and has its own local hidden variables which arise directly out the the uncertainty principle. So what is left is the question of explaining the correlations on a strictly local basis without all the "spooky" stuff.
IF that could be done, and I use the word IF and would not
claim it can be done without delivering hard mathematical proof at the same time, then we would end all doubt about whether QM is a correct and complete theory of the natural world on the smallest scales, favorably to QM. Joy Christian's model would then have to be mapped against such an understanding of QM as an LRHV theory in fact, and if that were to be successfully done, then I would say that Christian's theory is not an alternative theory to QM, but rather, is simply QM replicated in the different mathematical language known as geometric algebra. And all theories other than QM and translations of QM into other mathematical languages such as GA, would indeed be ruled out. This would validate Bell's Theorem in spirit, but not his (or anybody else's) understanding of QM.
So that is the plan. The question is whether I can succeed in proving that QM really is local but that the physical mechanism of its locality has not yet been understood. If you want to find out, stay tuned...
Jay
[quote="FrediFizzx"]From,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
Bell himself wrote: "If [a hidden variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local. This is what the theorem says." John Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 65.
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."
Since we have a physical theory of a local hidden variable that produces all the predictions of quantum mechanics, that theorem is false and can only be a theory.[/quote]
Starting with these "dictionary" definitions, let me give you my take:
Quantum mechanics [i]by definition[/i] reproduces all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell says that no locally realistic hidden variables (LRHV) theory can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics, most notably, the strong singlet correlations. Absolutely assumed and implicit in Bell's theorem is the conclusion that QM itself is NOT itself an LRHV theory. [b][u]IF[/u][/b] QM itself could be shown to be an LRHV theory even though nobody knew that before, then Bell's Theorem itself would not be wrong. What would be wrong are his implicit assumptions about the nature of quantum mechanics.
Cast in these terms, what I am attempting to do in https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/singlet-state-4.1-1.pdf and what will be the future development of this, is to determine whether QM itself really [b]IS[/b] an LRHV theory, unbeknownst to the world. In these first four sections I have already laid out why -- at least as to intrinsic spin used as a simplest example of the uncertainty principle -- QM is realistic and complete and has its own local hidden variables which arise directly out the the uncertainty principle. So what is left is the question of explaining the correlations on a strictly local basis without all the "spooky" stuff.
[b][u]IF[/u][/b] that could be done, and I use the word IF and would not [b][u]claim[/u][/b] it can be done without delivering hard mathematical proof at the same time, then we would end all doubt about whether QM is a correct and complete theory of the natural world on the smallest scales, favorably to QM. Joy Christian's model would then have to be mapped against such an understanding of QM as an LRHV theory in fact, and if that were to be successfully done, then I would say that Christian's theory is not an alternative theory to QM, but rather, is simply QM replicated in the different mathematical language known as geometric algebra. And all theories other than QM and translations of QM into other mathematical languages such as GA, would indeed be ruled out. This would validate Bell's Theorem in spirit, but not his (or anybody else's) understanding of QM.
So that is the plan. The question is whether I can succeed in proving that QM really is local but that the physical mechanism of its locality has not yet been understood. If you want to find out, stay tuned... :D
Jay