Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
Admittedly I still don't understand Hess and Philipp thoroughly and should study it more. But the conclusion seems to be, it does not present a valid alternative to QM interpretation of Bell experiments.

Christian's paper also fails. It's not in the same league as Hess, IMHO: Hess is a respectable attempt.

Bottom line: Bell seems to be right. Now, assuming that for the sake of argument, what conclusion can we draw?

Richard Gill says, in "Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell’s Fifth Position":

"Bell offered four quite different positions which one might like to take compatible with his mathematical results. They were:

1. Quantum mechanics is wrong.
2. Predetermination.
3. Nature is non-local.
4. Don’t care (Bohr).

In my opinion he missed an intriguing fifth position:

5. A decisive experiment cannot be done."

#5 is certainly possible. If so Quantum Computing will never work, I believe. This should be decided in a decade or two. #1 is rejected per assumption, #4 is negligible. #2 can't be proven one way or the other, so it's not really science.

That leaves #3, non-local, as (at least) a viable option. I don't see how anyone can reject it out of hand, as (for instance) Murray Gell-Mann does. He, and others with that opinion, just go over the basic facts of QM, then say "see, it's just QM!" - as though that answered the question.

There are more options, I think, which come under the heading of "non-realism". In particular EPR's "elements of reality" concept is clearly not the way the world works, if we accept QM. But most flavors of "non-realism" don't actually invalidate #3.

To emphasize, I'm making certain assumptions here. One, Hess and Philipp really are presenting a non-local scheme, as Gill says. (That remains an assumption, only because I haven't comprehended the argument entirely.) And, that no one else has a valid anti-Bell objection either - I certainly haven't studied all the literature. And, that the fifth position will be shown wrong in a decade or two.

So, this doesn't apply to Thomas Ray or others of his persuasion. He doesn't accept Bell in the first place, so naturally rejects non-locality, since Bell experiments are the only indication of it. I'm talking to those who accept Bell but still reject non-locality.

Why this resistance to non-locality? Since it can't be used for signaling, it doesn't violate relativity or any other known physics.

I'd like to hear any logical reason for non-locality being "out of the question", as Gell-Mann asserts.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 08-04-2016, 03:04 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)