Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
@ Thomas Ray,

Thomas Ray wrote: That's why I don't believe new physics were introduced--that 'peculiar type of non-locality' was already restricted by Einstein's postulate, and the loopholes in a Bell-Aspect type of experiment will never be closed.  Events were called non-local because they lay in the future light cone (advanced wave solution) -- whether or not information is available from this solution was never in question, however, by the unity of spacetime and the indistinguishability of past and future events. ("All physics is local".)

BTW as said in my above post to Gill, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to avoid the word "non-local" because it causes contention - we can call it "property X" or something. I agree it's conceivable all the loopholes will never be closed; Gill says something similar in his 2015 paper (the "fifth position", that Bell didn't mention).

However IF we assume the Bell experiments really do demonstrate what they appear to demonstrate, then information from the future light cone is being used to produce the experimental correlations. How Nature can access those two detector setting variables is unknown. Your suggested answer involves considering the exact properties ("unity", "indistinguishability of past and future events") of what we casually refer to as "space". Christian and FrediFizzx have a similar approach, based on "spinor properties" of space. Unfortunately the papers which attempt to prove these ideas aren't convincing, as far as I know at this time. What I'd really like to see is an experiment that could help decide the issue.

Thomas Ray wrote: Gill's rejection of local realism is a rejection of special relativity and the speed of light postulate.

There are many possible explanations of the Bell results. My personal preference is for a (partial) rejection of speed-of-light hypothesis: an FTL influence exists but can't be used for signaling. But this is, again, just philosophy, unless experiments can be done (or at least imagined) capable of falsifying or supporting the hypothesis.

Thomas Ray wrote: You have an open mind, secur, and my respect.

Thanks! My overall impression is, contrary to some rumors of personal strife I've heard, that everyone here is doing their best to work out these issues and communicate their thoughts.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 07-26-2016, 07:31 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 53 Guest(s)