Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
#35
Schmelzer: I would say relativity has failed when tested against quantum theory.

Right.

Schmelzer: I do not see any reason why the hidden parameters λ allowed by Bell would not include some "time-like correlated" or whatever correlated hidden variables.

Right, but there's a difference with the TLCP's of the paper. They're associated with the stations (Alice and Bob) not the two particles, like Bell's λ's.

Schmelzer: The obvious problem with introducing some time dependence is that a measurement in direction a by Alice predefines the measurement of a by Bob with certainty and independent of the time when Bob makes the measurement.

Hess and Philipp: Notice also that the time operations and mixing of parameters occur (in quantum mechanical terms) during the collapse of the wave function.

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".

To answer your objection, when Alice measures in direction a Bob's TLCP parameters are fixed right then. In particular his RV will determine that if, later, Bob sets his direction b equal to a, he will definitely (actually, in the “overwhelming majority of cases") equal Alice's result. No matter when Bob makes his actual measurement. (I think)

I'm figuring that this collapse is where the "trick" comes in. True, Station A is not communicating the setting a, or the result of the measurement. But it's (in effect) telling Station B that "right now" is when the measurement actually occurs. That allows the TLCP variables to coordinate enough to produce the right correlations. But it's not clear to me how that works.

I'm Ok with the idea of "instantaneous collapse", personally; but it does violate relativity.

[EDIT] I'm not sure if they mean the wave function collapses in both stations at once, or there are two separate collapses, at each station. Above I was assuming the former, but reading further it's not clear. If they mean the latter then Schmelzer's objection is hard to answer. Have others things to do now, I hope someone figures it out before I get back!
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 06-17-2016, 08:14 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)