Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(08-05-2016, 06:05 PM)secur Wrote: 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.

Hi secur,

I haven't watched the video, though I am familiar with Gell-Man's opinion ("flapdoodle") from *The Quark and the Jaguar*.

Joy Christian says much the same, for different reasons.  Nonlocality has no physical meaning or purpose.  Again, that's why Richard Gill wants to discard it; he is tasked to discard nonlocality without throwing out Bell's theorem.

"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."

Bingo. 

"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?"

I'm still digesting that paper (thanks, John Dixon).  

It's clear in its conclusions -- not so much in its mechanism (at least, not to me yet).  The authors claim that a particle does not exist in an 'up' or 'down' state until the experimenter chooses; I have a problem with that.

Time symmetry in special relativity does not allow observer choice, as that would constitute a privileged frame.  The key to my conjecture is the absolute indistinguishability of past and future events, expressed as entropy production.  The authors state,  

"More recently, Elitzur and Cohen studied a simple quantum interaction [22] that ends up with an event and a nonevent, together appearing to violate momentum conservation. They showed that the nonevent in question is due to a 'Quantum Oblivion' effect, where a very brief virtual interaction undergoes 'unhappening.' Oblivion, they argued, underlies quantum IFM, erasure and several other peculiar effects. Venturing further to theory, they proposed [22, 23] a retrocausal evolution that accounts for such self-cancellation, involving exchange of negative physical values between earlier and later events."

In a paper which I am trying (unsuccessfully so far) to initiate a collaboration at my ResearchGate site, I said, "Entropy hides its origin, so entropy is a good candidate for the ‘hidden variable’ of E-P-R reference.    The lamba+ or lambda-  which alternates (changes orientation) covariantly, depends on an initial condition which can be undone—giving us an impression of four lambdas:  lambda+ lambda- lambda+ lambda-, which are taken to be in superposition until one is measured—an act that somehow transfers information at a distance to its partner.   However, the distance is zero, following from an inability to distinguish entropy origin, past or future.   The initial condition is done and undone, locally and non-linearly, by a global wave function that does not depend on the observer—it is inherent in the structure of 4-dimension spacetime."

Nevertheless, I think this (E-C-S) is a breakthrough paper.

Best,
Tom
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 08-07-2016, 03:13 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)