Heinera wrote:You are not citing Joy Christian?
FrediFizzx wrote:That's correct. The math is not flawed in either case but there are a lot of interpretations of QM that are quite flawed. And a lot of it had to do with Bell's flawed physics theory.
FrediFizzx wrote:Bell's theorem is disproved so it can only be a theory not a theorem.
FrediFizzx wrote:From,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
Bell himself wrote: "If [a hidden variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local. This is what the theorem says." John Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 65.
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."
Since we have a physical theory of a local hidden variable that produces all the predictions of quantum mechanics, that theorem is false and can only be a theory.
Yablon wrote:Quantum mechanics by definition reproduces all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell says that no locally realistic hidden variables (LRHV) theory can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics, most notably, the strong singlet correlations. Absolutely assumed and implicit in Bell's theorem is the conclusion that QM itself is NOT itself an LRHV theory. IF QM itself could be shown to be an LRHV theory even though nobody knew that before, then Bell's Theorem itself would not be wrong. What would be wrong are his implicit assumptions about the nature of quantum mechanics.
Jay
Heinera wrote:All LRHV models can be shown to have an upper bound for a particular correlation.
Joy Christian wrote:Bell's theorem is a dead horse. It died at least a decade ago. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Bell's theorem is a dead horse. It died at least a decade ago. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
I think Bell's coffee is getting better and better! The horse is very much alive, and kicking harder than ever.
Heinera wrote:All LRHV models can be shown to have an upper bound for a particular expression involving correlations.
Heinera wrote:QM predictions exceed this upper bound.
Heinera wrote:Ergo, QM can not be an LRHV model.
Heinera wrote:The only escape from this is to start redefining the meanings of words like "correlation", "local" or "hidden variable." But when one starts redefining words (relative to the original context) in order to make an argument, one has left the realm of science and is solidly planted in philosophy.
Heinera wrote:The only escape from this is to start redefining the meanings of words like "correlation", "local" or "hidden variable." But when one starts redefining words (relative to the original context) in order to make an argument, one has left the realm of science and is solidly planted in philosophy.
Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:All LRHV models can be shown to have an upper bound for a particular correlation.
This claim is false on at least two counts.
To begin with, the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality arises entirely from considering incompatible physical experiments about four mutually exclusive directions:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876
Moreover, there exists at least one local-realistic framework that exceeds the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality just as any quantum mechanical prediction does:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392
You would be better off updating your outdated knowledge in this subject. Bell's theorem is a dead horse. It died at least a decade ago. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Yablon wrote:I agree that the definitions are important. I take as a guiding principle the wisdom of EPR that "The elements of the physical reality [and other definitions as well] cannot be determined by a priori philosophical considerations, but must be found by an appeal to results of experiments and measurements." I believe that in the opening four sections in https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -4.1-1.pdf I have stayed solidly planted within the realm of science in defining R and HV (and also "predictability with certainty" and "completeness"), in the context of intrinsic spin, with more to come, particularly the main event which is locality. Have you read what I wrote in those four sections? And did I get anything fundamentally wrong or drift out of the realm of science?
Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:All LRHV models can be shown to have an upper bound for a particular correlation.
This claim is false on at least two counts.
To begin with, the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality arises entirely from considering incompatible physical experiments about four mutually exclusive directions:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876
Joy Christian wrote:Moreover, there exists at least one local-realistic framework that exceeds the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality just as any quantum mechanical prediction does:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 30 guests