Login Register

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

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by gill1109 - 07-15-2016, 11:35 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 23 Guest(s)