Login Register

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


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by gill1109 - 07-15-2016, 07:28 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)