Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(11-21-2016, 09:30 PM)entangleman Wrote:
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.
Some suggestion? I'm not a native English speaker.

(11-21-2016, 09:30 PM)entangleman Wrote: 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.
Superdeterminism makes IMHO causality meaningless, instead of giving a common cause in the past. Simply, if you have superdeterminism, it makes no sense at all to search for causal explanations. So, ok, superdeterminism is a loophole, that's well-known, but if you take it seriously you can stop doing science. So I not only do not take it seriously, I find it so artificial that I don't think it is worth to be mentioned all the time in popular discussions of EPR/Bell. Ok, one has to mention it in some footnotes, given that, even if completely nonsensical, it is a loophole. But that's already all.
(11-21-2016, 09:30 PM)entangleman Wrote: 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.
I disagree. The EPR criterion of reality
Quote:If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity.
contains not even a reference to locality, even less to Einstein locality.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Schmelzer - 11-22-2016, 02:38 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)