Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
Thomas Ray wrote: To be frank, I was put off by Joy Christian's title, "Disproof of Bell's theorem" ...

Me too. But a rose will still smell as sweet, and an incorrect paper will still be as incorrect, no matter what name you give it Smile

Thomas Ray wrote: You say Bell's theorem introduced new physics ...

It set off the investigations (Aspect and other experiments) which demonstrated the peculiar type of non-locality inherent in QM. That's "new physics", compared to the old idea that no influence (however minimal) can be FTL. Admittedly it's still not entirely clear, due to still-extant "loopholes".

Thomas Ray wrote: By renouncing spacetime, Bell's theorem (and quantum theory based on it) has renounced relativity, and its proofs run in circles. If you don't believe it -- get Richard Gill to define a measure space for Bell-Aspect; get him to describe what happens if Planck's constant goes to zero.

I don't know in what sense Bell "renounces spacetime". If Planck's constant "goes to zero" we would get classical physics; but of course Planck's constant doesn't go anywhere: it is what it is. If Gill wants to address your comments it would probably help me understand what you're getting at.

Thomas Ray wrote: The problem is, relativity is solid -- LIGO is only the latest in a long line of spacetime validation.

SR is solid, it agrees with all experiments. GR much less so, although various aspects of it have, indeed, passed the test. But, pending discovery of "Dark Matter", it disagrees with many observations of star and galactic speeds, which grossly violate Newton's inverse square law. Finally both SR and GR are unsound philosophically. The fact that we can't - yet - detect an absolute reference frame in no way justifies the assertion that such doesn't exist. But I still don't see the relevance to Bell.

Thomas Ray wrote: Have you noticed the quantum theoretical fringe trying to do away with spacetime?

No, I haven't; but this brings up the most interesting aspect of this whole debate. I can't tell who's "fringe" and who isn't! The big surprise was that LM doesn't "believe Bell" either - he rejects non-locality. As I mentioned a few posts ago he called George Muller an "idiot" (i.e., his opinion differs). Who cares? Well, to me, LM represents "establishment physics". I've never seen him miss the party line in physics (or, indeed, anything else). So that indicates that you, Christian, FrediFizzx et al are not the fringe - evidently I, Gill, Schmelzer, Bell, Aspect, Zeilinger (etc) are! This has nothing to do with math, physics, science or logic. But as a sociological phenomenon it's very remarkable. Someone ought to write a book on this whole subculture of "fringe physics", there's a fascinating story to be told.

Concerning Hess and Philipp: I'd already noticed the discussion on page 5 (that Gill mentions above). It basically admits the problem.

From H&P: "Then, since the joint probability conditional on {R = m} depends on both settings, the marginal distribution of capital-lambda (a, t) for setting a conditional on {R = m} may be different. How can this be without instantaneous action at a distance? The answer is that if c would have been chosen, then over a whole sequence of measuring times all the settings would be different. ..."

This is not very convincing, to put it mildly.

But - in Hess's favor -, AFAIK experimenters still haven't rigorously excluded a time-dependent "loophole". Do we really know that entanglement will "work" in other settings than these typical photon-based experiments? In quantum cryptography, computing, and similar discussions, Alice, Bob, and their friends fly all over the universe with entangled particles in boxes, doing amazing tricks with them. But that's all fantasy. The sad truth is that in real labs, over distances of centimeters (not light-years), with the expenditure of millions of dollars, they still can't reliably demonstrate quantum computing. Maybe "Bell non-locality" is just an artifact of the particular experiments done so far? So Hess's main point - that time-correlation, in currently achievable experimental designs, has something to do with it - can't be dismissed so easily. AFAIK, IMHO, and pending further investigation.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 07-24-2016, 11:20 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 37 Guest(s)