A New Paper by Professor Karl Hess on Bell's Theorem
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:48 am
***
Professor Karl Hess has published a new paper on Bell's Theorem, entitled "Concepts of "local" and "nonlocal" in Bell's Theorem."
So far the paper has appeared only on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Re ... 968db468eb
In the paper, Professor Hess proposes to classify local and nonlocal theories into the following four categories:
There is a nice discussion in the paper about the meaning and scope of these four categories, with examples of various known and less-known theories in physics.
Rather kindly, in his paper Professor Hess also mentions my work on Bell's theorem, citing the second edition of my book and my latest Royal Society paper:
As we can see, he is cautious about my local-realistic framework, and justifiably so. It is not easy to analyze the geometrical and topological subtleties of the 3- and 7-sphere on which my framework is based. However, in my view, my framework falls into Category 1, for the following reason. Within my framework the strong correlations are the consequences of the geometry and topology of the 3-sphere, S^3, taken as the physical space, with the 7-sphere, S^7, being its algebraic representation space. This is in addition to the experimenters' labeling of their data by unit vectors a, b, etc of some vector space. This would suggest that my framework should belong to Category 2 instead of Category 1. However, Alice and Bob need not be aware of the fact that we are living in the 3-sphere, S^3, or that its algebraic representation space is S^7. They can be --- and are in the actual experiments --- oblivious to S^3 and S^7 geometries. They simply collect and analyze the data in the usual local manner, and represent them in Bell’s local-realistic functions, as A(a, λ) = +/-1 and B(b, λ) = +/-1, respectively. My contention is that, if we assume that Alice and Bob are living in S^3 without their knowledge, then the calculations of the average of the product AB of their results A and B will automatically be -a.b. So, for the purposes of performing their experiment, collecting data, and analyzing that data, they do not in any way use the fact that they are living in S^3. That “additional information” is from "God's vantage point", as a way of understanding the puzzling strong correlations. Consequently, I believe that my framework belongs to Category 1 and not to Category 2.
***
Professor Karl Hess has published a new paper on Bell's Theorem, entitled "Concepts of "local" and "nonlocal" in Bell's Theorem."
So far the paper has appeared only on Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Re ... 968db468eb
In the paper, Professor Hess proposes to classify local and nonlocal theories into the following four categories:
There is a nice discussion in the paper about the meaning and scope of these four categories, with examples of various known and less-known theories in physics.
Rather kindly, in his paper Professor Hess also mentions my work on Bell's theorem, citing the second edition of my book and my latest Royal Society paper:
As we can see, he is cautious about my local-realistic framework, and justifiably so. It is not easy to analyze the geometrical and topological subtleties of the 3- and 7-sphere on which my framework is based. However, in my view, my framework falls into Category 1, for the following reason. Within my framework the strong correlations are the consequences of the geometry and topology of the 3-sphere, S^3, taken as the physical space, with the 7-sphere, S^7, being its algebraic representation space. This is in addition to the experimenters' labeling of their data by unit vectors a, b, etc of some vector space. This would suggest that my framework should belong to Category 2 instead of Category 1. However, Alice and Bob need not be aware of the fact that we are living in the 3-sphere, S^3, or that its algebraic representation space is S^7. They can be --- and are in the actual experiments --- oblivious to S^3 and S^7 geometries. They simply collect and analyze the data in the usual local manner, and represent them in Bell’s local-realistic functions, as A(a, λ) = +/-1 and B(b, λ) = +/-1, respectively. My contention is that, if we assume that Alice and Bob are living in S^3 without their knowledge, then the calculations of the average of the product AB of their results A and B will automatically be -a.b. So, for the purposes of performing their experiment, collecting data, and analyzing that data, they do not in any way use the fact that they are living in S^3. That “additional information” is from "God's vantage point", as a way of understanding the puzzling strong correlations. Consequently, I believe that my framework belongs to Category 1 and not to Category 2.
***