Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
Here's the video of Gell-Mann I referred to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-OFP5tNtMY. Overall it's good, worth watching, but the part about Bell starts around 11:45. Paraphrased, Gell-Mann says:

Gell-Mann paraphrased: Bell's word "non-local" confused everyone. What they mean is "if it were a classical experiment, then it must be non-local". But it's not classical, it's QM! EPR is no different than Bertlemann's socks ... there is no non-local influence between the two particles. ... He winds up insisting that (his and Hartle's) decoherent histories interpretation is correct, and if you don't agree, you're an idiot (he doesn't use that word but the implication is clear).

I can illustrate the problem best by giving what he should have said:

What Gell-Mann should say: As I've just explained my "Decoherent Histories" is, I believe, the right explanation of QM "weirdness". Therefore I don't agree with others. In particular, there is no need for a non-local "influence" to travel between the two particles if you accept that there are different histories involved. BUT, of course none of this is proven yet. In fact it may never be provable - although I do think in time my theory will be supported. Until then it's just a matter of opinion. If you want to think in terms of a non-local influence, I can't say you're wrong. According to all experimental knowledge we have today, that ontology works.

You see the difference. Both statements have exactly the same content as far as logic, math, physics. But the first leaves no room for discussion. Either you agree with him, or you're an idiot. The second allows everyone to agree on almost all of physics, apart from a couple rather obscure points. They can work together to devise experiments to determine who's right, in a civilized fashion. If either side turns out wrong it's not because they're stupid, but Nature gave a different answer than they thought.

Thomas Ray wrote: We are learning, though, how the non-linearity of time contributes to the illusion of entanglement and superposition.

I finally see you're not just proposing an alternative explanation of Bell, but all of QM! Superposition - probabilistic wave function - is at the heart of all standard QM ontologies. But they're illusions, according to your view, due to non-linear time.

I don't doubt the case can be made: if you abandon orthocausal, linear time, you can reproduce QM without superposition or FTL influence. Elitzur et al's paper, that jrdixon referenced, uses retrocausality to achieve QM effects. That paper is very clear. Do you agree with it? Is that what you're talking about?

If so it's a matter of opinion, at this time. We should concentrate on devising experiments to distinguish the two ontologies. You admit that the standard way of looking at QM, with probabilistic wave function and superposition, is an "illusion" - which means, it DOES seem that way. So until it can be proven otherwise it's Ok that some people (like myself) think it IS that way. Conversely I'm happy to agree that retrocausal time is another valid possibility - as Elitzur et al show - although it seems less intuitive.

We agree on the actual experimental results, that's the main thing. Let's look for more advanced experiments that can help resolve different ontologies. If one or the other turns out to be right it doesn't mean the "losers" were idiots, just wrong.

Thomas Ray wrote: Have I told you how delightful it is to have a reasonable discussion?

There's far too much salesmanship going on - due, I think, to the funding game. If we carefully distinguish between knowledge, vs. opinion, these problems disappear. If someone disagrees with what we KNOW, they're wrong: say so. If they disagree with our opinion, however, they're not wrong (until such time the opinion becomes fact, via experiment), instead they're interesting.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 08-05-2016, 06:05 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)