Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
Thomas Ray wrote: " "QRC" assumes that no data are hidden. So one should look for hidden data to prove the assumption.  Not finding any hidden data, one should conclude that no data are hidden.   If you know of a way to prove this negative proposition other than by double negation, I would like to hear it."

QRC is a challenge with some rules; it does not assume anything.  The challenge is to write a computer model with a source, and two detector stations.  Between these three, the only communication allowed is that the source can send information to the two stations.  The stations cannot send information to eachother.  The settings of the detectors wil be chosen at random, outside the control of the program.  The results should be in statistical significant violation of Bell's inequality (e.g., they should closely match the QM predictions).

This is of course the operational version of a local realistic model.  According to Bell's theorem, it is impossible to construct such a model and have it replicate all the QM correlations.  If there is an error in Bell's proof on the other hand, QRC will have a solution.  In other words, anyone who thinks the QRC can't be won, also aknowledges Bell's theorem, because these two statements are logically equivalent.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Heinera - 07-26-2016, 09:00 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)