By your standard, we shouldn't care about the map as long as it works, so pick the deterministic Bohmian account because it's the clearest, until a better map comes along.
Asif M. Shakur (Author of Bell's Theorem and Quantum Realism)
The GHZ formulation of Bell is just a distraction, and is not relevant to any point here. It agrees with the way that Bell originally explained it. If all of that is wrong, the burden is on you to show the error. GHZ makes the issue clearer by getting rid of statistics.
Sign In / Returning Customer
There are Nobel prizewinners who believe in superdeterminism. You have to explain the results of Bell!
- Low-Energy FPGAs — Architecture and Design (The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science).
- 100 years of European Philosophy Since the Great War: Crisis and Reconfigurations?
- Bell's Theorem and Quantum Realism: Reassessment in Light of the Schrödinger Paradox;
To say that you don't believe in reality isn't an explanation but pure mysticism. You can believe there is no explanation mathematically but then you aren't really doing science. You are the one introducing arbitrary rules you can't prove. Furthermore, psi can be lambda.
Nothing is restricting this possibility! QM is non-local. Counterfactuals are implied but not assumed in the argument. The result was of course, that all theories featuring local hidden variables must conflict with the quantum mechanical predictions.
As compelling as this may be in itself, this is not yet the full story, as Bell showed in further papers. What is implied by such a combination is that the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics are in conflict with any local theoretical explanation one might consider.
What can be said regarding the possibility of objective interpretations of quantum phenomena? While there is no contradicting the notion that local realistic theories must be ruled out, we see also that the quantum theory itself conflicts with all local theoretical explanations. Quantum theory may be called irreducibly nonlocal. Point particles are the problem, not the solution. They can only be placed or determined in abstraction, not reality. There is literally nothing in reality that can carry mass as diagrammatic abstraction, so don't start with one to describe what we know is NOT a point.
Bell doesn't rely on point particles but spacelike separated observables. Locality in QFT simply means field operators must commute when evaluated at spacelike separated events. Susskind puts it a fairly clear way.
Just simulate quantum mechanics on a computer. So reproduce Bell where Alice and Bob use two separated computers simulating quantum mechanics. You can't! Quantum mechanics is a non-local theory. I don't care what someone's beliefs are. The Bell Theorem is a piece of mathematics, and it requires local hidden variables. The assumption is essential to the proof. In later papers, Bell tried to make some arguments for the reasonableness of the assumption. Maybe so, but it is an assumption nevertheless. If you try to simulate a quantum experiment using computers, and you program local hidden variables into the computer, then you are making the assumption.
No, psi cannot be lambda.
- Full E-book Quantum [Un]speakables II: Half a Century of Bell's Theorem For Online.
- Beginning CSS3.
- Recommended for you?
- Living From the Heart (2nd Edition);
- Passions of the Sign: Revolution and Language in Kant, Goethe, and Kleist (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society).
- Teaching American Ethnic Literatures: Nineteen Essays.
- 1. The Completeness of the Quantum Mechanical Description.
The whole point of the Bell theorem is that the psi theory predicts something different from the lambda theory. He cites EPR at the very beginning of the paper! I said simulate quantum mechanics. Can you reproduce Bell? You cannot use local quantum mechanics. Get it? It's piece of mathematics and not quantum mechanics.
You are making the unwarranted assumptions here. The predictions of quantum mechanics violate Bell.bamvisurpy.tk
De Broglie–Bohm theory
You seem hung up on the wording "hidden. I don't care what your beliefs are about Bell. The math is unambiguous. The observed facts, not merely some interpretation of the theory, stand against locality, so the thorny problems surrounding the interpretation of quantum formalism can be almost entirely avoided. Maudlin is correct that Bell's theorem can be proved using only a classical theory of hidden variables, and without any quantum theory. When the experiment demonstrates the violation, then it follows that the classical theory of local hidden variables is wrong. That theory is wrong, regardless of any interpretation of quantum mechanics.
He abbreviates "classical theory of local hidden variables" to just "locality", making his explanation a little confusing.
So now you are just making up quotes. You seem to think that quantum mechanics is specially exempt from the argument. It isn't and it's proven by the simple thought experiment of having two separated computers simulating the quantum mechanics of Alice and Bob. You can't reproduce Bell without wires. If quantum mechanics is a local theory, it would not need wires.
There is nothing restricting Bell's lambda. There is a nonseparability inherent to the theory. You are just making up meaningless conjunctions of words like 'classical variables,' which is nowhere justified.
Recommended for you
Thursday, February 7, Gell-Mann agrees with me about Bell. I have occasionally argued that Bell's Theorem has been wildly misinterpreted, and that it doesn't prove nonlocality or anything interesting like that. Readers have supplied references saying that I am wrong. Now I find a short Murray Gell-Mann interview video agreeing with me.
The Bell test experiments do show that quantum mechanics differs from certain classical theories, but not by spookiness, entanglement, or nonlocality. You could say that the particles are entangled, but classical theories show similar effects. He says: It is a matter of giving a dog a bad name and hanging him. When two variables at the same time don't commute, any measurement of both of them would have to be carried out with one measurement on one branch of history, and the other measurement on the other branch of history. That's all there is to it. People are still mesmerized by this confusing language of nonlocality.