Login Register

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

The work you cite is pretty convincing. It seems I learned about these issues at just the right time, since it's been less than a year that these (approximately) lopphole-free experiments have been performed, and settled these issues (more or less). But I have one question for you.

In your 2015 paper, https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0301059v2.pdf, you say:

"I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not think that quantum mechanics is non-local."

And in 2002, https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0110137v4.pdf :

'The violation of the Bell inequalities show that any deterministic, underlying, theory intending to explain the surface randomness of quantum physical predictions, has to be grossly non-local in character. For some philosophers of science, for instance Maudlin (1994), this is enough to conclude that “locality is violated, tout court”. He goes on to analyse, with great clarity, precisely what kind of locality is violated, and he investigates possible conflicts with relativity theory. Whether or not one says that locality is violated, depends on the meaning of the word “local”. In our opinion, it can only be given a meaning relative to some model of the physical world, whether it be implicit or explicit, primitive or sophisticated.'

In 2015 you also discuss the 4+1 options available, such as "Don't care" and "QM won't allow totally loophole-free experiments". But you never state which option you prefer.

On the face of it I would agree with Maudlin but understand it's a subtle issue, and that I'm no expert. So could you please explain why you reject the "QM is non-local" interpretation of Bell-related results, and what your preferred option is. A brief indication of your position is fine, no need for details, I can always ask for more clarification. Thanks in advance!

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 07-25-2016, 05:33 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 44 Guest(s)