Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
#61
"In real Bell-CHSH experiments, we can't observe quadruples (A, A', B, B'). It is only the hypothesis of local realism that says that they do exist."

Exactly! You have a hypothesis that is physically impossible to test. So it is junk science to think that the experiments are testing the hypothesis. They aren't. They are only confirming that the predictions of QM are correct. Which is good.
Reply
#62
(07-13-2016, 06:58 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: "In real Bell-CHSH experiments, we can't observe quadruples (A, A', B, B'). It is only the hypothesis of local realism that says that they do exist."

Exactly!  You have a hypothesis that is physically impossible to test.  So it is junk science to think that the experiments are testing the hypothesis.  They aren't.  They are only confirming that the predictions of QM are correct.  Which is good.

With Christian's exploding balls experiment, you obviously can observe the quadruples, so in that case it is possible to test.  Still junk science?
Reply
#63
(07-13-2016, 08:51 PM)Heinera Wrote:
(07-13-2016, 06:58 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: "In real Bell-CHSH experiments, we can't observe quadruples (A, A', B, B'). It is only the hypothesis of local realism that says that they do exist."

Exactly!  You have a hypothesis that is physically impossible to test.  So it is junk science to think that the experiments are testing the hypothesis.  They aren't.  They are only confirming that the predictions of QM are correct.  Which is good.

With Christian's exploding balls experiment, you obviously can observe the quadruples, so in that case it is possible to test.  Still junk science?

Is that testing local realism against quantum mechanics?  Perhaps by a long chain of reasoning since if successful, then Bell's theory is wrong.  So we make the qualification that it is impossible to test in a quantum experiment.  But I think that was obvious.
Reply
#64
(07-13-2016, 09:31 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote:
(07-13-2016, 08:51 PM)Heinera Wrote:
(07-13-2016, 06:58 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: "In real Bell-CHSH experiments, we can't observe quadruples (A, A', B, B'). It is only the hypothesis of local realism that says that they do exist."

Exactly!  You have a hypothesis that is physically impossible to test.  So it is junk science to think that the experiments are testing the hypothesis.  They aren't.  They are only confirming that the predictions of QM are correct.  Which is good.

With Christian's exploding balls experiment, you obviously can observe the quadruples, so in that case it is possible to test.  Still junk science?

Is that testing local realism against quantum mechanics?  Perhaps by a long chain of reasoning since if successful, then Bell's theory is wrong.  So we make the qualification that it is impossible to test in a quantum experiment.  But I think that was obvious.

You argue that Bell's proof must be wrong, because it assumes that the quadruple (A, A', B, B') can be observed in the same run, which you claim is physically impossible.  But it's not impossible in Joy's experiment.  So according to your own logic, Bell's inequality must hold in that case.
Reply
#65
(07-13-2016, 06:58 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: "In real Bell-CHSH experiments, we can't observe quadruples (A, A', B, B'). It is only the hypothesis of local realism that says that they do exist."

Exactly!  You have a hypothesis that is physically impossible to test.  So it is junk science to think that the experiments are testing the hypothesis.  They aren't.  They are only confirming that the predictions of QM are correct.  Which is good.

Under the hypothesis of local realism, Bell's inequality follows; and it is possible to test, up to statistical error and statistical uncertainty, whether or not Bell's inequality holds.

The hypothesis of local realism has observable consequences.
Reply
#66
(07-14-2016, 08:46 AM)gill1109 Wrote:
(07-13-2016, 06:58 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: "In real Bell-CHSH experiments, we can't observe quadruples (A, A', B, B'). It is only the hypothesis of local realism that says that they do exist."

Exactly!  You have a hypothesis that is physically impossible to test.  So it is junk science to think that the experiments are testing the hypothesis.  They aren't.  They are only confirming that the predictions of QM are correct.  Which is good.

Under the hypothesis of local realism, Bell's inequality follows; and it is possible to test, up to statistical error and statistical uncertainty, whether or not Bell's inequality holds.

The hypothesis of local realism has observable consequences.

LOL!  But the Bell inequalities don't hold for quantum experiments.  Under the hypothesis that all physics is local and real, they fail.  So quantum experiments can't and don't test for local realism.  So something is wrong with Bell's hypothesis.  Might as well get rid of that hypothesis of local realism.  It doesn't work properly and can't be tested in quantum land.  But as Heine points out, it could be tested by a macroscopic mechanical singlet experiment.  Someone should do it.
Reply
#67
(07-15-2016, 06:34 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote:
(07-14-2016, 08:46 AM)gill1109 Wrote:
(07-13-2016, 06:58 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: "In real Bell-CHSH experiments, we can't observe quadruples (A, A', B, B'). It is only the hypothesis of local realism that says that they do exist."

Exactly!  You have a hypothesis that is physically impossible to test.  So it is junk science to think that the experiments are testing the hypothesis.  They aren't.  They are only confirming that the predictions of QM are correct.  Which is good.

Under the hypothesis of local realism, Bell's inequality follows; and it is possible to test, up to statistical error and statistical uncertainty, whether or not Bell's inequality holds.

The hypothesis of local realism has observable consequences.

LOL!  But the Bell inequalities don't hold for quantum experiments.  Under the hypothesis that all physics is local and real, they fail.  So quantum experiments can't and don't test for local realism.  So something is wrong with Bell's hypothesis.  Might as well get rid of that hypothesis of local realism.  It doesn't work properly and can't be tested in quantum land.  But as Heine points out, it could be tested by a macroscopic mechanical singlet experiment.  Someone should do it.
The loophole-free quantum experiments of Vienna, NIST and Delft last year do test rigorously for local realism and they show that it can't be true. The conclusion is indeed that we have to abandon the hypothesis of local realism.
Reply
#68
(07-15-2016, 07:28 AM)gill1109 Wrote:
(07-15-2016, 06:34 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: LOL!  But the Bell inequalities don't hold for quantum experiments.  Under the hypothesis that all physics is local and real, they fail.  So quantum experiments can't and don't test for local realism.  So something is wrong with Bell's hypothesis.  Might as well get rid of that hypothesis of local realism.  It doesn't work properly and can't be tested in quantum land.  But as Heine points out, it could be tested by a macroscopic mechanical singlet experiment.  Someone should do it.
The loophole-free quantum experiments of Vienna, NIST and Delft last year do test rigorously for local realism and they show that it can't be true. The conclusion is indeed that we have to abandon the hypothesis of local realism.
How can that be? You said yourself, "In real Bell-CHSH experiments, we can't observe quadruples (A, A', B, B')." If you can't observe that quadruple then you can't test for local-realism in a quantum Bell-CHSH test experiment. It is just not possible.
Reply
#69
(07-15-2016, 06:34 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: But as Heine points out, it could be tested by a macroscopic mechanical singlet experiment.  Someone should do it.

No, I was merely pointing out the absurdity of you arguing that Bell's theorem fails because it is impossible to measure the same particle more than once, while at the same time advocating for an experiment where this clearly is possible.  So do you really mean Bell's theorem holds in one case, but noe the other?
Reply
#70
(07-15-2016, 07:56 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote:
(07-15-2016, 07:28 AM)gill1109 Wrote:
(07-15-2016, 06:34 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: LOL!  But the Bell inequalities don't hold for quantum experiments.  Under the hypothesis that all physics is local and real, they fail.  So quantum experiments can't and don't test for local realism.  So something is wrong with Bell's hypothesis.  Might as well get rid of that hypothesis of local realism.  It doesn't work properly and can't be tested in quantum land.  But as Heine points out, it could be tested by a macroscopic mechanical singlet experiment.  Someone should do it.
The loophole-free quantum experiments of Vienna, NIST and Delft last year do test rigorously for local realism and they show that it can't be true. The conclusion is indeed that we have to abandon the hypothesis of local realism.
How can that be?  You said yourself, "In real Bell-CHSH experiments, we can't observe quadruples (A, A', B, B')."  If you can't observe that quadruple then you can't test for local-realism in a quantum Bell-CHSH test experiment.  It is just not possible.
It is possible. Even though not themselves observable, the existence of those quadruples does have observable consequences:
In a certain context, local realism implies Bell's inequality.
Therefore, if in this context we observe that Bell's inequality is violated, we may deduce that local realism is not true.

The context: I am talking about a "loophole-free" experiment, which means an experiment with rigorous constraints on the time and space arrangement, binary outcomes, setting a or a' (and b or b') chosen completely at random in each run anew etc.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 16 Guest(s)