SciPhysicsForums.com

Excerpt from article linked below.

While Bell’s theorem and its proof via the violation of Bell’s inequality are considered irrefutable proof of the non-locality of nature at the microscopic scale it is, to be precise, a proof that nature doesn’t conform to a particular definition of local realism as defined in the EPR paper. But does the proof of Bell’s theorem refute other definitions of local realism which may better describe reality?

Bell’s theorem states:

No theory of local hidden variables can reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

In axiomatic terms, Bell’s theorem is simply a special case of the more general theorem:

It is not possible to derive all predictions of a theory from a second theory when the theories considered are based on mutually exclusive axiom sets.
When applied to quantum mechanics and a hidden variable theory, all that is required to prove Bell’s theorem is to find two mutually exclusive axioms, one belonging to the axiom set of the hidden variable theory and the other belonging to quantum mechanics. But such a proof would do nothing to answer the question of completeness of quantum mechanics.


http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -realisms/

DanielLBurnstein wrote:Excerpt from article linked below.

While Bell’s theorem and its proof via the violation of Bell’s inequality are considered irrefutable proof of the non-locality of nature at the microscopic scale it is, to be precise, a proof that nature doesn’t conform to a particular definition of local realism as defined in the EPR paper. But does the proof of Bell’s theorem refute other definitions of local realism which may better describe reality?

No, since nothing can violate Bell's inequalities. It is mathematically impossible. Bell's "theorem" (not really even a true theorem) has been a 50 year hoax on the physics community.

No, since nothing can violate Bell's inequalities. It is mathematically impossible. Bell's "theorem" (not really even a true theorem) has been a 50 year hoax on the physics community.

Wouldn't it be best would to view the argument before commenting? I think there is a serious flaw in the generalization of hidden variable theories by Bell, but I'm not buying into some conspiracy against the truth (though I don't think the arguments favouring Bell are convincing). I prefer to stay out of the sociology of academics and stick to physics.

DanielLBurnstein wrote:No, since nothing can violate Bell's inequalities. It is mathematically impossible. Bell's "theorem" (not really even a true theorem) has been a 50 year hoax on the physics community.

Wouldn't it be best would to view the argument before commenting? I think there is a serious flaw in the generalization of hidden variable theories by Bell, but I'm not buying into some conspiracy against the truth (though I don't think the arguments favouring Bell are convincing). I prefer to stay out of the sociology of academics and stick to physics.

Do minkwe's challenge if you want to stick to physics.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=181#p4921

With all due respect, Fred, in order to refute a line of reasoning, one needs to know and understand the line of reasoning. That is, if we don't want to avoid dogmatism, which is what you accuse the academia of.

The entire reasoning leads to the conclusion:

We should seriously question the validity of statistical abstractions when it comes to describing the physical world.

I mean "if we want to avoid dogmatism."

DanielLBurnstein wrote:I mean "if we want to avoid dogmatism."

What do you want to "know and understand"? Most of this has been explained to death on this forum.

Does the Violation of Bell's Inequality Refute Local Realism?

Absolutely not. Nothing can violate Bell's inequalities. If you disagree, please show the violation:
Here is the question: Please demonstrate that QM violates Bell's inequality

by providing , the QM predictions for the terms

I don’t dispute the mathematical consequences of Bell’s theorem and inequality. I dispute something much more fundamental. That is, I question Bell’s generalization of hidden variable theories, the definition of locality and the nature of measured properties thought as being binary.

So even if mathematical arguments rigorously follow from Bell’s assumptions, they only prove or disprove the theorem, they say nothing as to whether or not the assumptions in regards to the above are correct. In other words, even if your mathematical arguments are correct, they are only correct insofar as the assumptions about hidden variables, locality and properties correctly describe reality.

As for Bell, if is results hold, they only hold against the assumptions of locality made in the EPR paper.

DanielLBurnstein wrote:I don’t dispute the mathematical consequences of Bell’s theorem and inequality. I dispute something much more fundamental.

Hi Daniel,
I'm not quite following your point. We've analyzed every aspect of Bell's theorem on this forum. We've shown that no physical assumption is required to obtain the inequalities contrary to Bell's claims:
see for example: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75&start=170#p4380

DanielLBurnstein wrote:That is, I question Bell’s generalization of hidden variable theories, the definition of locality and the nature of measured properties thought as being binary.

There is no problem with binary outcomes. But contrary to appearances, Bell's inequalities have nothing whatsoever to do with hidden variables or any physical concept such as locality. They are mathematical tautologies.

DanielLBurnstein wrote:So even if mathematical arguments rigorously follow from Bell’s assumptions, they only prove or disprove the theorem, they say nothing as to whether or not the assumptions in regards to the above are correct.

Still do not follow. Please, state one of those assumptions that bothers you, and I will show you where we've already disposed of it.

DanielLBurnstein wrote:In other words, even if your mathematical arguments are correct, they are only correct insofar as the assumptions about hidden variables, locality and properties correctly describe reality.

Then that tells me you haven't closely followed the arguments against Bell here. We aren't just relying on Bell's mathematical assumptions. It has been a full-on assault on every aspect of it. That includes a debunking of the claim that anything Bell proposed can correctly describe reality. So, please be specific which assumption you have in mind and I'll point you to the relevant argument which disposes of it.

As for Bell, if is results hold, they only hold against the assumptions of locality made in the EPR paper.

And what assumption of locality in the EPR paper do you have problems with? What do you understand as a definition of "locality"?

Besides, if as we've established, nothing can violate the inequalities, then it is moot to discuss the assumptions which went into them, since the inequalities are therefore irrelevant for any physics.

I understand that you and others are certain of your disproofs but I arrive at a different result. You believe that Bell's inequalities can't be violated. I show that they are violated by both local hidden theories and QM rendering them useless. You use statistical analysis of the data, I use strictly causal physics. Though I believe Bell's theorem does not correctly generalizes hidden variable theories, I show using the physics of Bell experiments that both LHV theories and QM will inevitably violate Bell's inequality thus Bell's inequality does not truly discriminate between them. I concluded:

"[...] by simply assuming that a detector does not detect electrons having spins relative to an axis, but rather only discriminates between ranges of spin angles, we can derive an inequality which predictions are in agreement with Bell experiments and are thus indistinguishable from the predictions of quantum mechanics for the same experiments. Hence, Bell’s generalization of hidden variables and the inequality derived form is not to be taken as a constraint of the predictions of local realistic theories. It follows that the violation of Bell’s inequality does not refute local realism."

DanielLBurnstein wrote:I show that they are violated by both local hidden theories and QM rendering them useless.

Daniel,
If you believe Bell's inequality is violated by QM and a LHV theory, back it up

by providing , the predictions for the terms

which you claim violate it. That's the starting point, if you insist on talking about "violation of Bell's inequality", it is hard to discuss without that.

You use statistical analysis of the data, I use strictly causal physics. Though I believe Bell's theorem does not correctly generalizes hidden variable theories, I show using the physics of Bell experiments that both LHV theories and QM will inevitably violate Bell's inequality thus Bell's inequality does not truly discriminate between them.

I don't think you have fully appreciated it. Did you read any of the posts I referenced earlier? We've shown that the inequalities do not apply to the experiments at all. So if you believe they apply to LHV theories, you will have to explain in what way. Again, the starting point of that discussion is to provide the predictions you claim violate it.

"[...] by simply assuming that a detector does not detect electrons having spins relative to an axis, but rather only discriminates between ranges of spin angles, we can derive an inequality which predictions are in agreement with Bell experiments and are thus indistinguishable from the predictions of quantum mechanics for the same experiments. Hence, Bell’s generalization of hidden variables and the inequality derived form is not to be taken as a constraint of the predictions of local realistic theories. "

Your conclusion does not seem to me at odds with my point of view. Though not having read the details of your approach, I can not vouch for its cogency. But you are the one insisting that my point of view is somehow handicapped by certain Bell assumptions, and I'm simply telling you that is not true and you haven't understood my point of view, otherwise you wouldn't say that.

In fact, I will insist that as much as you think your local realistic theory violates Bell's inequality, you have made a serious error. As long as you have a lingering belief that QM violates Bell's inequalities, you have made an error. I'm prepare to work through it to show you where your error is if only you would present how you arrive at the violation (ie provide the predictions for from any theory you claim violates the inequalities). That is the starting point.

Minkwe,

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that your disproof is handicapped in any way. It would be presumptuous on my part to assume that since I am not qualified to evaluate it and would rather rely on researchers who are authorities on the subject to make that kind of determination.

What I’m proposing is that the definition of locality in the original EPR paper may not correspond to reality. I discuss this in Locality, Certainty and Simultaneity under Instantaneous Interactions.

http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... eractions/

I’m also proposing is that the binary definitions of up and down spins relative to detectors may not correspond to reality either. So I simply use a different model to predict the behaviour of a specific type of so-called Bell experiment; those that use detectors that determine the orientation of electron spins. This is discussed in my article about Bell inequality.

I have not brought up yet the notion of the existence of quantum entanglement which is also an assumption of the EPR paper and central to the question as to whether reality is local or non-local. So I examined experiment that are known to support the existence of quantum entanglement and found that observations can be explained in a local reality way.

http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... ts-part-1/

http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... ts-part-2/

DanielLBurnstein wrote:Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that your disproof is handicapped in any way. It would be presumptuous on my part to assume that since I am not qualified to evaluate it and would rather rely on researchers who are authorities on the subject to make that kind of determination.

I hope by "authorities" you are not thinking about who I think you are thinking about, otherwise I would have to excuse myself for a very hard uncontrollable laugh.

What I’m proposing is that the definition of locality in the original EPR paper may not correspond to reality. I discuss this in Locality, Certainty and Simultaneity under Instantaneous Interactions.

You will have to be specific here. What exactly do you take issue with, as far as the EPR understanding of "locality". What is your own definition of "locality". If you read the arguments I presented, you will see that I demonstrate there is no concept of locality in Bell's derivation of his inequalities.