Hidden Variables
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Printable Version

+- Hidden Variables (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables)
+-- Forum: Foundations of Quantum Theory (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Violation of Bell's Inequalities (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? (/showthread.php?tid=8)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 10-02-2016

No, I was talking about the "exploding balls" paper, "Macroscopic Observability of Spinorial Sign Changes under 2 pi Rotations". Sorry I should have checked which one was involved in Annals of Physics. "Local Causality in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Spacetime" we discussed at length some time ago. I studied the errors mentioned by Gill, and agreed. Even found one of my own. It's the first paper, "Macroscopic Observability ...", that I thought was better, but disagreed with the conclusion - that the macro experiment with the balls would violate Bell inequality.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 10-03-2016

On what physical principle does the experiment not violate Bell's inequality?


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 10-03-2016

Just that classical experiments, in SO(3) not SU(2), don't violate it. Still I wish the experiment would be done, with balls in different bright primary colors. The video would definitely go viral!


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 10-03-2016

That's a mathematical -- not physical -- principle.

In my opinion, the most important contribution of the Joy Christian “exploding balls” experiment is the introduction of a non-arbitrary initial condition rather than preparing particles in a supposedly entangled state.

There is a widespread belief – articulated in this thread by Richard Gill – that quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics.   Despite the failure of theorists and experimentalists to show where the demarcation is, or where the quantum wave function becomes classical, the belief persists that classical behavior “somehow” derives from quantum rules.

The classical experiment turns this belief on its head, in a locally realistic manner, by removing the special conditions required to violate Bell’s inequality by Bell-Aspect and CHSH type experiments.  Joy takes his cue from Newton, to “make no hypothesis” toward physical phenomena.  

We should see that for every explosion sharing a common time parameter, that time conservation demands negative correlation between hemispheres.  (See d'Espagnat's bold type explanation in http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf)   This will apply every time the explosion is repeated – implying correlation all the way back to the cosmic initial condition, and reinforcing Einstein’s expectation (Geometry and Experience) that two clocks, having once been synchronized, will remain synchronized when brought back into proximity.

If successful, Joy’s experiment will be remembered in history alongside Galileo’s.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 10-03-2016

TR wrote: There is a widespread belief – articulated in this thread by Richard Gill – that quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics.   Despite the failure of theorists and experimentalists to show where the demarcation is, or where the quantum wave function becomes classical, the belief persists that classical behavior “somehow” derives from quantum rules.

I share that belief and agree it remains to be fully articulated and proved.

TR wrote: If [my italics] successful, Joy’s experiment will be remembered in history alongside Galileo’s.

True.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 10-03-2016

Then we're on the same page, secur.   Smile


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - entangleman - 11-21-2016

I would like to pinpoint a number of errors in this post. First of all, this


Quote:And there are two possible causal explanations: Or one event is the cause of the other, or above have a common cause.

is not a sentence and should be corrected. Second, this statement


Quote:What is excluded by Bell's theorem is the causal explanation by a common cause in the past.

is simply wrong. Superdeterminism is a well-known loophole of Bell inequalities, see for instance here. A common cause in the past and what is here called the "EPR criterion of reality" do not coincide. While it is true that Bell's theorem disproves the latter, this cannot be claimed of the former. Let me also say that I disagree with the statement that Bell's theorem relies on Einstein causality and EPR. That both superluminal signaling and superdeterminism are loopholes for the theorem indicates that only EPR is really required. The confusion usually comes from the fact that fulfilment of EPR entails locality in Einstein's sense. Also, since in this case the outcome of the experiment can be traced back to the event where the entangled particles were created, this can easily be confused with "a common cause in the past". Superdeterminism requires the loss of freedom of choice. When the causes for the experimental preferences and those for the result of the measurements coincide, the violation of the inequalities can be explained by a "common cause" of this type, without the need for superluminal signaling and hence for a preferred frame.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Schmelzer - 11-22-2016

(11-21-2016, 09:30 PM)entangleman Wrote:
Quote:And there are two possible causal explanations: Or one event is the cause of the other, or above have a common cause.
is not a sentence and should be corrected.
Some suggestion? I'm not a native English speaker.

(11-21-2016, 09:30 PM)entangleman Wrote: Second, this statement
Quote:What is excluded by Bell's theorem is the causal explanation by a common cause in the past.
is simply wrong. Superdeterminism is a well-known loophole of Bell inequalities, see for instance here.
Superdeterminism makes IMHO causality meaningless, instead of giving a common cause in the past. Simply, if you have superdeterminism, it makes no sense at all to search for causal explanations. So, ok, superdeterminism is a loophole, that's well-known, but if you take it seriously you can stop doing science. So I not only do not take it seriously, I find it so artificial that I don't think it is worth to be mentioned all the time in popular discussions of EPR/Bell. Ok, one has to mention it in some footnotes, given that, even if completely nonsensical, it is a loophole. But that's already all.
(11-21-2016, 09:30 PM)entangleman Wrote: A common cause in the past and what is here called the "EPR criterion of reality" do not coincide. While it is true that Bell's theorem disproves the latter, this cannot be claimed of the former. Let me also say that I disagree with the statement that Bell's theorem relies on Einstein causality and EPR. That both superluminal signaling and superdeterminism are loopholes for the theorem indicates that only EPR is really required. The confusion usually comes from the fact that fulfilment of EPR entails locality in Einstein's sense.
I disagree. The EPR criterion of reality
Quote:If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity.
contains not even a reference to locality, even less to Einstein locality.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 11-23-2016

That sentence could be phrased like this:

And there are two possible causal explanations: either one event is the cause of the other, or they have a common cause.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Schmelzer - 11-23-2016

Thanks, corrected.