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? - Thomas Ray - 06-18-2016

Schmelzer wrote: "I would say relativity has failed when tested against quantum theory. "

Quite impossible, since relativity is mathematically complete and quantum theory is not.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Schmelzer - 06-18-2016

Quantum theory is as complete (incomplete) as relativity.

The fact is that to prove Bell's inequality all you need are self-evident trivialities, like realism or causality, and relativity. The resulting prediction - Bell's inequality - stands against the QM prediction. Experiment has shown that QM was correct, and Bell's inequality false.

So, relativity has failed. In such a horrible way that it has to reject the very existence of reality as well as the principle that correlations have causal explanations to immunize itself. This is even worse than the immunizations used by religions - which make claims about really existing Gods or devils or so, and give fantastic but at least formally causal explanations of whatever we observe.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 06-18-2016

The way I see it, Lorentzian relativity hasn't failed. Bell results imply a "rest frame"; which was never ruled out by actual data (only by logical-positivist philosophy), and is strongly suggested by CMB, not to mention common sense. Super-luminal quantum collapse is also indicated by Bell results, which Lorentz never denied, never even thought about. There are still loopholes, and alternative explanations, but that's the way the picture seems to be shaping up.

Both these new "loopholes", Joy Christian and Hess & Philipp, seem to me valid on their own terms (although if you say there are errors, I haven't studied enough to contradict you). They amount to a couple more far-fetched "loopholes", like denial of counterfactual definiteness, which are far less acceptable than Lorentz - according to my intuition. Your mileage may vary.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Schmelzer - 06-18-2016

Of course, I should have added "fundamental" to relativity, as I often do, but not always.

Joy Christian is clearly wrong.

Whenever you hear "counterfactual definiteness", you can suspect that it comes from someone who has not understood that it is derived in Bell's theorem using the EPR argument. This error is quite common even among otherwise serious scientists.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 06-18-2016

I'm not so sure it implies an error in understanding, rather an error in philosophy. At least, a very questionable philosophy. Bell, EPR, and almost every thinker since the dawn of time has accepted it. It simply means I'm allowed to make assumptions about what would have happened if I had done something I didn't in fact do. For instance, I drop this pen; it falls to the ground. Physics and common sense both say that IF I'd dropped it 5 minutes ago, it would also have fallen. But the opportunity to test that statement is now forever gone. Can I still assume it would have happened? Counterfactual definiteness says yes, I can.

The reason we hear people denying it these days: they're trying to squirm out of the obvious conclusion of Bell - related experiments. But the concept has been considered long ago. Leibniz is the most famous example, with his Theory of Monads; although I never heard that exact term used in relation to him. Voltaire, by the way, thoroughly ridiculed Leibniz's denial of counterfactual definiteness, in "Candide"; but ridicule is no counter-argument. The Hindus considered denial of it (they considered everything) and rejected (the denial of) it. BTW as a general rule, any philosophical point, no matter how obscure, has been considered by great thinkers at various times during the last thousands of years.

The fact is there's no way to prove or disprove counterfactual definiteness. My judgment follows the Hindus; I accept it. If someone else rejects it, that's their opinion and they're welcome to it; I have nothing to say to them. Except, perhaps, ridicule Wink


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - FrediFizzx - 06-19-2016

(06-18-2016, 02:09 PM)Schmelzer Wrote: The fact is that to prove Bell's inequality all you need are self-evident trivialities, like realism or causality,  and relativity.   The resulting prediction - Bell's inequality - stands against the QM prediction.  Experiment has shown that QM was correct, and Bell's inequality false.
...
[...] Experiment indicates that QM is correct and has nothing to say about Bell's inequalities.  You continue to compare apples with oranges.  A proven mathematical inequality can't be false.  It is so freakin' simple!
...


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Thomas Ray - 06-19-2016

Secur wrote:  "They're assuming TLCP's at both stations are determined simultaneously. Of course this violates relativity and is a variety of 'spooky action at a distance'.

Determined simultaneously, measured discretely.  No violation of locality.  

Richard Gill, et al, published a "refutation" of the PNAS paper, claiming first that the work was another nonlocal theory, and finally that time is irrelevant.

You judge.  arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0208187

(06-18-2016, 11:35 AM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Schmelzer wrote:  "I would say relativity has failed when tested against quantum theory. "

Quite impossible, since relativity is mathematically complete and quantum theory is not.

(06-18-2016, 02:09 PM)Schmelzer Wrote: Quantum theory is as complete (incomplete) as relativity.  

The fact is that to prove Bell's inequality all you need are self-evident trivialities, like realism or causality,  and relativity.   The resulting prediction - Bell's inequality - stands against the QM prediction.  Experiment has shown that QM was correct, and Bell's inequality false.  

So, relativity has failed.  In such a horrible way that it has to reject the very existence of reality as well as the principle that correlations have causal explanations to immunize itself.  This is even worse than the immunizations used by religions - which make claims about really existing Gods or devils or so, and give fantastic but at least formally causal explanations of whatever we observe.

Mathematically complete -- meaning that the physical results are entirely contained within the mathematical postulates.  Quantum theory is a mish-mash of ad hoc assumptions.

Relativistic predictions are falsifiable, and do not need gods and devils.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - Schmelzer - 06-19-2016

(06-19-2016, 02:33 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: Experiment indicates that QM is correct and has nothing to say about Bell's inequalities.  You continue to compare apples with oranges. A proven mathematical inequality can't be false.
Of course, nobody talks about your funny inequality with 4 instead of 2. With 2, it is not a purely mathematical triviality, but derived by Bell based on a nontrivial assumption, namely Einstein causality. Once this is violated by quantum theory and observation, Einstein causality is dead.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - secur - 06-19-2016

Einsteinian relativity
(06-19-2016, 03:00 PM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Secur wrote:  "They're assuming TLCP's at both stations are determined simultaneously. Of course this violates relativity and is a variety of 'spooky action at a distance'.

Determined simultaneously, measured discretely.  No violation of locality.  

Simultaneity at a distance is a violation of Einsteinian relativity, as is well known. Lorentzian relativity with its preferred (or absolute, or fixed) reference frame, however, allows simultaneity.

In Einsteinian relativity, does simultaneity violate locality? Hard to say, it could be question of semantics. In general, certainly you can have simultaneity and still retain locality.


RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - FrediFizzx - 07-01-2016

[doubled posting deleted, see here]