Joy Christian wrote:Hi Q-reeus,
Thanks for your comments.
The Unruh lecture you mention has already been discussed elsewhere in this forum: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82#p3493.
Q-reeus wrote:Thanks for that link to past discussion Joy. I will admit to not having looked through more than a fraction of the many past and sometimes very long posts!
OK so evidently the gist there is that Bill Unruh is wrong in claiming standard QM is really local. It's a shock for me to now realize you have all along been claiming standard QM is inherently non-local, but since reality is local, therefore wrong. instead I thought your argument was QM made all the right predictions but as an actually local theory. Got that much right?
Assuming so, do you agree with my last post in respect of that your theory predicts classical correlations of equal strength to QM, on the basis of a physically real torsion? Such torsion manifesting as in-vacuo chirality in our 'usual' spatial 3D?
Joy Christian wrote:Q-reeus wrote:Thanks for that link to past discussion Joy. I will admit to not having looked through more than a fraction of the many past and sometimes very long posts!
OK so evidently the gist there is that Bill Unruh is wrong in claiming standard QM is really local. It's a shock for me to now realize you have all along been claiming standard QM is inherently non-local, but since reality is local, therefore wrong. instead I thought your argument was QM made all the right predictions but as an actually local theory. Got that much right?
Assuming so, do you agree with my last post in respect of that your theory predicts classical correlations of equal strength to QM, on the basis of a physically real torsion? Such torsion manifesting as in-vacuo chirality in our 'usual' spatial 3D?
I wouldn't say quantum mechanics is "wrong" (and I don't think you meant to say that either). Quantum mechanics makes all the right statistical predictions, but as an intrinsically non-local theory, provided we accept it to be a "complete" theory of nature. This was essentially the point Einstein fought for most of his life. Einstein was right about this and Unruh is wrong. Bell, by the way, was on Einstein's side on this point. He too agreed that quantum mechanics is an intrinsically non-local theory of nature (provided we accept...). But unlike Einstein Bell thought that no local theory can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. And on this point I disagree with Bell and with most of the mainstream physics community: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/o ... lations-2/.
So, yes, I agree with your observation about the significance of torsion in the physical space for the existence of strong (i.e., quantum) correlations in nature.
Q-reeus wrote:Allright so agreed QM makes the correct predictions - despite it's presumably wrong inherent non-local formulation. I'm feeling slightly dizzy at this point and obviously have never grasped the subtleties of ontological vs epistemic..... Well hopefully the acid test is not far off. How is the experimentalist team coming along? Converging rapidly to a final physical experimental regime? I like to think my own input this thread has helped in some small way.
Joy Christian wrote:Yes, your input was helpful. The progress is slow, however, because of the complexities of the problem (as we discussed before). We just have to hope for the best.
minkwe wrote:Agreed, Bell's theorem will be known as the greatest scandal in theoretical physics.
It looks like some recent activities by the Bell mafia over at Pubpeer have backfired. I see some of their papers under serious attack, with one and possibly two of papers by a certain mathematical statistician completely discredited by peers over there, and two recent high-profile experiments proclaiming violation of inequalities discredited. From what I see, there is a lot of scrambling going on right now in the Bell camp.
Interesting point about the CH inequality. I haven't looked at it carefully but I suspect I will find similar skeletons as we unveiled about the CHSH here a while back.
See:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/D985B4 ... 3E3A314522
https://pubpeer.com/publications/E0F838 ... 516D03BB38
https://pubpeer.com/publications/B08756 ... ADC2E4CF1C
I remember the mathematical statistician was advised not to publish the paper with the identified errors (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30&start=10#p971) but he proceeded.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests