Yablon wrote:... At the present time quantum mechanics is widely understood to be a non-local theory. IF — and I emphasize that I am using the hypothetical word IF — IF it can be shown that quantum mechanics, unbeknownst to anybody at the present time, is in fact a “local“ and “realistic“ theory in accordance with commonly-accepted definitions of those terms, then Bell’s Theorem would become irrelevant. I did not say “wrong.” I said “irrelevant.” Because, as Peres has made clear, Bell’s Theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics.
As to Joy Christian‘s theory, it would then become necessary to demonstrate that this is simply the hypothesized local realistic quantum mechanics in a different mathematical language, namely, the language of geometric algebra. IF this can also be demonstrated, this would use the “quantum mechanical exemption” to Bell’s theorem to move Christian’s theory outside the zone of relevance for Bell’s Theorem, just as is quantum mechanics.
Heinera wrote:Regarding the title of this thread, what do you mean with the word "realistic"? What is the physical/mathematical definition you have in mind?
Peres hardly uses the word at all in his book, and then mostly with the everyday meaning (i.e., as opposed to "unrealistic").
Heinera wrote:Regarding the title of this thread, what do you mean with the word "realistic"? What is the physical/mathematical definition you have in mind?
Peres hardly uses the word at all in his book, and then mostly with the everyday meaning (i.e., as opposed to "unrealistic").
jreed wrote:Heinera wrote:Regarding the title of this thread, what do you mean with the word "realistic"? What is the physical/mathematical definition you have in mind?
Peres hardly uses the word at all in his book, and then mostly with the everyday meaning (i.e., as opposed to "unrealistic").
I think most people dealing with QM and reality refer to this quote from the EPR paper:
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity."
Joy Christian wrote:Peres uses counterfactual definiteness (which he does discuss) as synonymous to realism.
Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Peres uses counterfactual definiteness (which he does discuss) as synonymous to realism.
Well, in that case the question in the title can be answered in the negative with certainty.
Also, I think Jay should know that in the physics community, questioning the correctness of Bell's theorem has about the same status as claiming special relativity is inconsistent because of the twin paradox.
Joy Christian wrote:As for Bell's so-called theorem, it is entirely irrelevant for the future of physics
Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:As for Bell's so-called theorem, it is entirely irrelevant for the future of physics
We can certainly agree on that.
Joy Christian wrote:
Unfortunately, those who are in the business of equating "the physics community" with "the followers of the Bell-dogma" appear to have no scruples about betraying Nature and science.
As for Bell's so-called theorem, it is entirely irrelevant for the future of physics even if it were correct, which it is not. To recognize Bell's mistake, all one has to do is read this short paper.
gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:As for Bell's so-called theorem, it is entirely irrelevant for the future of physics
We can certainly agree on that.
Yes, I agree too. It had a huge impact and has been a major driver of modern "quantum information science". The future goes on, from here.
Yablon wrote:In view of the foregoing, the following is the essence of what I am exploring and will be putting on the table prior to the symposium. My present draft of this undertaking can be found at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... e-4.3a.pdf:
...
IF it can be shown that quantum mechanics, unbeknownst to anybody at the present time, is in fact a “local“ and “realistic“ theory in accordance with commonly-accepted definitions of those terms, then Bell’s Theorem would become irrelevant.
jreed wrote:Heinera wrote:Regarding the title of this thread, what do you mean with the word "realistic"? What is the physical/mathematical definition you have in mind?...
I think most people dealing with QM and reality refer to this quote from the EPR paper:
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity."
FrediFizzx wrote:The answer to the question in the title is YES.
Heinera wrote:Well, in that case the question in the title can be answered in the negative with certainty.
Yablon wrote:IF it can be shown that quantum mechanics, unbeknownst to anybody at the present time, is in fact a “local“ and “realistic“ theory in accordance with commonly-accepted definitions of those terms, then Bell’s Theorem would become irrelevant. I did not say “wrong.” I said “irrelevant.” Because, as Peres has made clear, Bell’s Theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics.
Heinera wrote:Also, I think Jay should know that in the physics community, questioning the correctness of Bell's theorem has about the same status as claiming special relativity is inconsistent because of the twin paradox.
Yablon wrote:My best guess is that you are simply applying Bell’s Theorem by reflex, even though Peres, whom you recommended we all look at, makes abundantly clear with emphasis that Bell’s Theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics.
Heinera wrote:Yablon wrote:My best guess is that you are simply applying Bell’s Theorem by reflex, even though Peres, whom you recommended we all look at, makes abundantly clear with emphasis that Bell’s Theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics.
And this is where you misunderstand the arguments of both Bell and Peres. Bell's theorem applies to all counterfactually definite and local theories. It gives an upper bound for the correlations of those theories. In that sense it does not apply to QM, since QM is not counterfactually definite and local (which is the whole point of their argument). Your lapse of logic is that you now conclude that since Bell's theorem doesn't apply to QM, it means there is a possibility that QM could itself be counterfactually definite and local. But if it were, Bell's theorem would then apply, and you would have a contradiction. That is the argument of Peres.
Yablon wrote:3. First, never anywhere did I say that Bell’s Theorem is incorrect.
Yablon wrote:Fair enough, so let’s follow that logic through:
QM predicts a correlation -a.b. If it could be proved that QM was counterfactually definite and local, without losing the correlation prediction -a.b, how would you interpret that?
Yablon wrote:Nonetheless, after putting words in my mouth that were not there, Heine pulls out the idealogical canard that questioning Bell’s Theorem is equivalent to questioning the special theory of relativity which has sustained itself against more than a century of efforts on multiple fronts to find contradictions to it. While there are many things I am tempted to say about this sort of tactic which is nothing more than an attempt to bully people out of undertaking certain areas of honest scientific research for fear of being personally and professionally discounted, I will not dignify it with any response at all.
Jay
Heinera wrote:I was just trying to give you an honest situation report on how the physics community views any attempts at making QM "local and realistic". On another note, Bell's theorem actually has a higher standing than special relativity, if that is even possible. Bell's theorem is, well, a theorem, while SR is a physical theory, which may after all be superseded by something else (much like Galilean relativity was superseded by SR). It is however at theorem that SR is internally consistent. That will never be disproved.
Heinera wrote:Yablon wrote:3. First, never anywhere did I say that Bell’s Theorem is incorrect.
No, you didn't. This was simply something I inferred from the fact that you are co-author on the draft "Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State with a Hidden Variable." If the two functions in (8) and (9) in that draft actually produced the QM correlations as claimed, it would be a clear counterexample to Bell's theorem, which would then have to be incorrect.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 69 guests