Jarek wrote:Indeed, it nicely shows how drastic the Bell theorem situation is.
But what if physics solves own equations in symmetric way: e.g. using Feynman path integrals instead of Schrodinger - would it still satisfy problematic assumptions of Bell theorem? Boundary conditions (e.g. hidden variables) are not just in the past there, but symmetrically: in past and future.
I read the two guests posts Richard, and started to read his FXQi essay before giving up. IMHO he doesn't know how gravity works, he doesn't know how electromagnetism works, and he doesn't understand the issues in Quantum Electrodynamics. So he's clutching at straws when he proposes chaos theory as some silver bullet that will lead to quantum gravity and unification. Spacetime has no spinorial properties. Spacetime models space at all times, and is therefore static. Palmer's proposal isn't physics, it's foundation-free fumbling in the dark. It's Emperor's New Clothes, and that's why it's beyond you. If you think I'm being unreasonably critical there, compare and contrast Palmer's proposal with something I've written: The theory of everything. I think you will find that it is not beyond you.gill1109 wrote:I wonder what people think of the latest work of Tim Palmer, which is being strongly supported by Sabine Hossenfelder, and which seems to have the same spirit, though the technical details are totally different (and for the time being, quite beyond me).
Jarek wrote:Richard, I am much more interested in how objectively physics works, than what names do we choose for it.
For example does it solve its equations in symmetric way like Schrodinger equation - what leads to these Bell theorem issues?
Or maybe fundamentally CPT symmetric physics solves its equations in a symmetric way, like Feynman path/diagram ensembles? - what seems to resolve all these issues (?)
JohnDuffield wrote:I read the two guests posts Richard, and started to read his FXQi essay before giving up. IMHO he doesn't know how gravity works, he doesn't know how electromagnetism works, and he doesn't understand the issues in Quantum Electrodynamics. So he's clutching at straws when he proposes chaos theory as some silver bullet that will lead to quantum gravity and unification. Spacetime has no spinorial properties. Spacetime models space at all times, and is therefore static. Palmer's proposal isn't physics, it's foundation-free fumbling in the dark. It's Emperor's New Clothes, and that's why it's beyond you. If you think I'm being unreasonably critical there, compare and contrast Palmer's proposal with something I've written: The theory of everything. I think you will find that it is not beyond you.gill1109 wrote:I wonder what people think of the latest work of Tim Palmer, which is being strongly supported by Sabine Hossenfelder, and which seems to have the same spirit, though the technical details are totally different (and for the time being, quite beyond me).
minkwe wrote:I've been saying something similar here for years. Counterfactual outcomes are not statistically independent of actual outcomes.
Heinera wrote:minkwe wrote:I've been saying something similar here for years. Counterfactual outcomes are not statistically independent of actual outcomes.
There is nothing in the proof of Bell's theorem that requires that counterfactual outcomes must be statistically independent of actual outcomes.
gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:minkwe wrote:I've been saying something similar here for years. Counterfactual outcomes are not statistically independent of actual outcomes.
There is nothing in the proof of Bell's theorem that requires that counterfactual outcomes must be statistically independent of actual outcomes.
Actual outcomes are a function of a complete set of counterfactual outcomes, and of the actual settings. By a complete set, I mean the set (or rather, list) of all of the outcomes which would have been observed whatever the settings might have been. This list, of course, must include the outcomes which actually were seen, supposing that certain settings were actually "actualized". This is all a matter of conventional definitions in the field of Causality.
Joy Christian wrote:Bell's "theorem" is as wrong as 2 + 2 = 5.
Jarek wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Bell's "theorem" is as wrong as 2 + 2 = 5.
If you don't like Bell inequality, maybe let's focus on this simpler Mermin's:
Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1
which is nearly "tossing 3 coins, at least 2 are equal".
Its derivation doesn't need any ambiguous "locality", "realism", just "there exists Pr(ABC) probability distribution" assumption:
Pr(A=B) = P(000) + P(001) + P(110) + P(111)
Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 2P(000) + 2P(111) +sum_ABC P(ABC) = 2P(000) + 2P(111) + 1 >= 1
Do you also see it "2 + 2 = 5" type inequality?
How do you interpret its violation by QM formalism ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5214 )?
gill1109 wrote:
Einstein struggled his whole life long (but died too soon to meet Bell).
Jarek wrote:Richard,
I am just not fixed on asymmetric way of solving physics like Euler-Largange, Schrodinger - they satisfy assumptions used to derive Bell inequalities, which are violated - contradiction ... what also concerns e.g. classical field theories like electromagnetism of general relativity.
There are also symmetric ways to solve them like least action principle, Feynman path/diagram ensemble - which have symmetric boundary conditions: "hidden variables" in past and future, what is very different than Bell's locality.
We just have to accept that CPT symmetric physics solves its equations in symmetric way - and all the issues disappear.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 234 guests