Heinera wrote:
The committee has always emphasized "new physics". While philosophically interesting, Bell's theorem has few practical consequences. It merely derives bounds on the possible predictions of old physics (i.e. classical). And the Aspect experiment was just one more experiment confirming the predictions of quantum mechanics. They basically stopped awarding the Nobel for that a long time ago.
Joy Christian wrote:What nonsense! The claim of a discovery of a radical new nonlocality in Nature is as dramatic as discovering a new fundamentally mystical voodoo in Nature.
.
Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:What nonsense! The claim of a discovery of a radical new nonlocality in Nature is as dramatic as discovering a new fundamentally mystical voodoo in Nature.
.
The "radical new nonlocality in Nature" was already discovered in the twenties, with the formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Lots of Nobel prizes given for that.
Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:What nonsense! The claim of a discovery of a radical new nonlocality in Nature is as dramatic as discovering a new fundamentally mystical voodoo in Nature.
.
The "radical new nonlocality in Nature" was already discovered in the twenties, with the formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Lots of Nobel prizes given for that.
I can assure you that the Nobel Committee does not doubt the correctness of Bell's theorem.
Heinera wrote:
Bell did not "discover" that nature is non-local. He demonstrated that any classical theory must be non-local if it has any ambition of reproducing the predictions of QM. That is why his paper initially had a rather lukewarm reception by his contemporary physicists; they were like "So what? Nobody belives in classical theories anyways these days, except as a useful macroscopic approximation." For instance Feynman hardly ever mentioned Bell's theorem, he felt that the theorem's conclusion was something that everybody already knew.
Heinera wrote:Bell did not "discover" that nature is non-local. He demonstrated that any classical theory must be non-local if it has any ambition of reproducing the predictions of QM. That is why his paper initially had a rather lukewarm reception by his contemporary physicists; they were like "So what? Nobody belives in classical theories anyways these days, except as a useful macroscopic approximation." For instance Feynman hardly ever mentioned Bell's theorem, he felt that the theorem's conclusion was something that everybody already knew.
gill1109 wrote:Heinera wrote:Bell did not "discover" that nature is non-local. He demonstrated that any classical theory must be non-local if it has any ambition of reproducing the predictions of QM. That is why his paper initially had a rather lukewarm reception by his contemporary physicists; they were like "So what? Nobody belives in classical theories anyways these days, except as a useful macroscopic approximation." For instance Feynman hardly ever mentioned Bell's theorem, he felt that the theorem's conclusion was something that everybody already knew.
In fact, Feynman was annoyed when he heard about it, thought about it for a few minutes, and then proved the same theorem his own way. He didn’t publish it because nobody talked about Bell’s theorem, nobody cited Bell, for four or five years. But then Clauser was crazy enough to do his experiment with his student Freedman. He had waited till he got tenure to do it, because nobody believed quantum entanglement would continue to exist at any distance. Shimony then got excited and the CHSH paper came out with an inequality which could be useful in laboratory work. The Clauser-Horne inequality also came out, it too was designed for experimentalists, in fact, it has the same philosophy as Eberhard. (Eberhard’s contribution was not only to “merge” the “-1” outcomes with the “no shows” so as to get binary outcomes instead of ternary, but also to show that a much less weakly entangled state,with appropriate measurements, required much lower detector efficiency than CHSH). A handful of people published refutations. Bell published his refutation of those refutations. Then Aspect did his experiment.
Joy Christian wrote:.
It is quite funny that Bell believers are bending over backward in this thread to point out that Bell's theorem is junk physics --- not worthy of a Nobel Prize!
.
Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
It is quite funny that Bell believers are bending over backward in this thread to point out that Bell's theorem is junk physics --- not worthy of a Nobel Prize!
.
Why should it be worthy of a Nobel prize? It's a trivial theorem, and only crack**ts can be obsessed with it. And claiming that it is wrong is a sure career killer. As evidenced on this forum.
FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
It is quite funny that Bell believers are bending over backward in this thread to point out that Bell's theorem is junk physics --- not worthy of a Nobel Prize!
.
Why should it be worthy of a Nobel prize? It's a trivial theorem, and only crack**ts can be obsessed with it. And claiming that it is wrong is a sure career killer. As evidenced on this forum.
Only crackheads can think that it is possible that ANYTHING can exceed the bounds on the inequalities. QM can't do it. Experiments can't do it. The inequalities are worthless junk!
Joy Christian wrote:.
There are some (such as Henry Stapp, for example) who call Bell's theorem "the most profound discovery of science": https://physicsworld.com/a/john-bell-pr ... y-science/
And yet, no Nobel Prize for it for over 57 years. That is quite hilarious, to say the least.
.
Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
There are some (such as Henry Stapp, for example) who call Bell's theorem "the most profound discovery of science": https://physicsworld.com/a/john-bell-pr ... y-science/
And yet, no Nobel Prize for it for over 57 years. That is quite hilarious, to say the least.
.
Henry Stapp doesn't award Nobel prizes.
Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
There are some (such as Henry Stapp, for example) who call Bell's theorem "the most profound discovery of science": https://physicsworld.com/a/john-bell-pr ... y-science/
And yet, no Nobel Prize for it for over 57 years. That is quite hilarious, to say the least.
Henry Stapp doesn't award Nobel prizes.
Those who do award Nobel Prizes evidently think that the hype around Bell's junk theorem is moronic.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
There are some (such as Henry Stapp, for example) who call Bell's theorem "the most profound discovery of science": https://physicsworld.com/a/john-bell-pr ... y-science/
And yet, no Nobel Prize for it for over 57 years. That is quite hilarious, to say the least.
Henry Stapp doesn't award Nobel prizes.
Those who do award Nobel Prizes evidently think that the hype around Bell's junk theorem is moronic.
Evidently not. Brian David Josephson received the Nobel prize in 1973 for discovering the Josephson effect, a macroscopic quantum phenomenon. This led to the invention of the Josephson junction. Google's quantum computer "Sycamore" consists of 53 Josephson junctions, tiny electric circuits, on a single chip, super-cooled to enable superconductivity. The experimental evidence for "quantum supremacy" of this machine is pretty strong. It computed stuff in a very short time, which could not be computed on the best available classical supercomputers in hundreds of years. I think we can expect Nobel prizes connected to quantum computing and quantum information theory in a few years. I don't think that Joy Christian is going to be a recipient.
The ongoing debate about, and criticism of, Bell's theorem is important and stimulating but on the whole, in my opinion, pretty moronic. An awful lot of highly educated people do not know the relevant literature and are just regurgitating the criticism of Bell's critics - mainly based on misunderstanding of basic logic and basic concepts - raised in the early years after its publication.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests