Login Register

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

"@Thomas Ray,

You left out the sentences before and after the one you quoted:

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.)  

For the time being, I've moved on to the question about non-locality. Main reason: "Einstein was Right" isn't available in my local library, so I've ordered it, and put off further study until it arrives. It sounds like a good read and no doubt will help me get Hess's ideas.

Having said that: all things considered, I think Gill is probably right. But, that's not to say he IS right, until I understand it myself. BTW note the difference between Hess and Christian. Christian's paper is simple enough that I can agree with Gill's conclusion - that Christian made mistakes - from my own knowledge. Anyway, in a week or two I hope to get back to Hess & Philipp. For the time being I'm interested in Gell-Mann and (what seems clearly to be) his mistake.

In a sane world I wouldn't have to work so hard! If the physics establishment all agree on some point - Hess is wrong, for instance - I should be able to simply accept the expert opinion. But in this "insane" world, the biggest names in physics, such as Gell-Mann, Witten, Weinberg, Deutsch, and so on, are clearly illogical. They make assertions which are prima facie unjustified; plus they disagree with each other, so someone has to be wrong (probably all of them). The assertions I'm referring to are of the sort "Theory XYZ is obviously right", where XYZ can be String Theory, Many Worlds, Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, etc. They also say "there is definitely no XYZ", where XYZ is "absolute reference frame", "ether", "non-locality", etc. But these theories and assertions not only have no experimental support, they arguably can never have such support! It's because of this that Hess and other dissenters from the mainstream (such as Schmelzer) may, pending my own study, very possibly be right. Actually, Bell's theorem is really a minor point compared to this overarching problem with theoretical physics: the inmates have taken over the asylum."

I sincerely apologize.  I don't often cut comments short -- in this case, I wanted to emphasize that the problem of non-locality goes away with the realization that it is no more than an assumption to prop up Bell's theorem.  That's why Gill wants to do away with it, and can't, because it lies at the heart of any particle theory.  If the quantum wave function is probabilistic -- linear superposition is real, and if superposition is real, events are non-local.

Taking space-time as real, superposition is a mathematical artifact, not real.  Where the wheels went off the track, long ago, is in separating Einstein realism from locality -- normalizing time and making its role disappear.  We are learning, though, how the non-linearity of time contributes to the illusion of entanglement and superposition.

I'm going to reserve comment on Joy's framework for the time being. Except to say that it is analytical and non-linear -- often misrepresented and criticized for what it is not.

Have I told you how delightful it is to have a reasonable discussion?

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 08-05-2016, 12:03 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 24 Guest(s)