Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
I would like to pinpoint a number of errors in this post. First of all, this

Quote:And there are two possible causal explanations: Or one event is the cause of the other, or above have a common cause.

is not a sentence and should be corrected. Second, this statement

Quote:What is excluded by Bell's theorem is the causal explanation by a common cause in the past.

is simply wrong. Superdeterminism is a well-known loophole of Bell inequalities, see for instance here. A common cause in the past and what is here called the "EPR criterion of reality" do not coincide. While it is true that Bell's theorem disproves the latter, this cannot be claimed of the former. Let me also say that I disagree with the statement that Bell's theorem relies on Einstein causality and EPR. That both superluminal signaling and superdeterminism are loopholes for the theorem indicates that only EPR is really required. The confusion usually comes from the fact that fulfilment of EPR entails locality in Einstein's sense. Also, since in this case the outcome of the experiment can be traced back to the event where the entangled particles were created, this can easily be confused with "a common cause in the past". Superdeterminism requires the loss of freedom of choice. When the causes for the experimental preferences and those for the result of the measurements coincide, the violation of the inequalities can be explained by a "common cause" of this type, without the need for superluminal signaling and hence for a preferred frame.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by entangleman - 11-21-2016, 09:30 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)