Bell's Theorem and Nonlocality

There is no question of mechanics in quantum mechanics. The theory is aptly named if we consider the photoelectric effect as being some kind of mechanism (this discovery predates the use of quantum mechanics as an accepted name for a theory), but the name isn't important, it could equally be called quantum phase theory and it would still describe the particles and their interactions.

The theory doesn't postulate a mechanism and doesn't need one, the interactions and the particles describe everything but in the language of complex numbers or "vectors" (nobody really knows why it's like that).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a bit premature. I appreciate the Copenhagen interpretation to a degree, because if I didn't shut up and calculate most of the time, I would never get any work done. But the whole idea of fundamental randomness seems pretty inelegant to me, and my (completely philosophical) guess is that the underlying reality is some kind of hidden variable system. I can't speak for Cptbork or others.

Again, I think you kind of miss the point. We're not assuming there is no physical mechanism, and then dismissing your model because it has a mechanism. That would be silly. What we're saying is that if your model does have a mechanism, experiments have shown that said mechanism must be deterministic and/or nonlocal. Because your model uses only local, deterministic mechanisms, it has been contradicted by experiment.

Like I said before, it does make me uncomfortable thinking that there is no mechanism underlying the results of quantum mechanics, and it is my hope that someday someone much smarter than me will come up with a theory that can do away with the randomness. But there's a reason the Copenhagen interpretation is still popular: the "naive guess" models, where some local hidden variable accounts for seemingly random results, cannot work. As in, there exist formal proofs that they mathematically cannot account for the results of some experiments. So we don't object to mechanisms per se, we just object to your specific mechanism on the grounds that it cannot explain Bell inequality results. (The paper you cited, while interesting, talks about spatially localized dynamics and does not really address any issues of Bell inequalities, so it's at best tangential to this conversation.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe a fully local realistic and even deterministic explanation has been accomplished, and general non-acceptance is a consequence of institutionalized inertia or worse. Here's a very short arXiv listing of some authors who claim to have 'cracked it'. You may have to skim down some ways through each listing before hitting an appropriate article(s). I make no judgement, having no expertise in the subject. Also, sorry if these were given earlier here - I cannot be bothered reading through each posting this thread.
http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au: Hooft_G/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au: Raedt_H/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au: Khrennikov_A/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au: Matzkin_A/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au: Adenier_G/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for the links! I don't have a whole lot of time today, so I clicked the first link and scrolled down until I found a paper whose title sounded like it would answer my questions. I was unimpressed; Dr. t'Hooft spent a lot of ink explaining how fundamentally classical theories can obey the Schrodinger equation, but relegated Bell inequalities to one section in which he basically went for the hyperdeterminism loophole. (That's the one where the scientists' choices of final measurement bases are not actually random, but correlated with the classical hidden variables in such a way as to give the appearance of quantum mechanics.) But maybe there are more satisfying options among the other authors.

 

Really? I couldn't find one citation on any of the papers you linked. Show us one that would lead you to believe there is a fully local realistic and even deterministic explanation that has been accomplished. Blaming the lack of recognition, for the result you mention, as a consequence of institutionalized inertia or worse is pure bullshit.

 

Yep, and as I made clear (but someone else seems not to have read it), it's merely a suggested listing to peruse through. I got to know about them only through links thrown up by members of another forum site where the main issue is Bell's theorem. Gerard 't Hooft (note; comma before the t

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) is well known as basically advocating a form of super determinism (probably quite similar to hyperdeterminism

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). Despite his Nobel Laureate status, it got him labeled as 'crackpot' by some, which may or may not make certain others so branded feel a bit better.

One name not mentioned last time was Joy Christian: http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au: Christian_J/0/1/0/all/0/1
I recently queried him over his linkage of Bell violations to an 'intrinsic spatial torsion'. It didn't go particularly well. Will PM you re that site.

 

The BS, and usual trollish, flaming attitude, is all yours. Go read again all of what I actually wrote. Whether Rajesh was right or just surmising about you getting into drunken fits, it fits the bill. As for no citations, I decided to try the very first article linked to under the very first author listed, http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548, then clicked on the 'cited by' link at rhs of page, and up came 16 citations:
http://arxiv.org/cits/1405.1548
And it's not as though you have any real understanding let alone expertise on this topic. If you wish to make a fool of yourself further, that's your problem. As I recall, in every single clash between us on an actual issue - mostly GR related, you have come off second-best. If you feel the urge to wile away your time searching back through posts to challenge that, be my guest.

 

Christian is certainly a crank, on a little bit higher level than the usual one, given that he has some education. But, nonetheless, it is quite clear that his "refutation" of Bell's theorem is nonsense, his behaviour in discussions can be seen in http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewforum.php?f=6 and is typical for cranks, namely a refusal to argue about the counterarguments themself and to start personal attacks.

 

I tend to agree, but reserve a little bit of 'just maybe' notwithstanding his weird linkage to 'intrinsic torsion'. And oh, the reason I wanted to just PM that site address to Fednis48, was to avoid an invasion of trolls and flamers from here to there. Nice one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Don't worry, Fredi allows to troll and flame only to guys of his team, if others start to flame they will be banned immediately.

 

There is something to that, but still....Time will tell as to how it goes. I took the precaution of emailing Fred a preliminary listing of 'dubious persons' - with the caveat some will likely simply resort to aliases.

 

As I recall you're pretty much a crank. That would be the first citation after about 20 searches that I made. Nobody is interested in citing the stuff you linked for a reason. Your conclusion that it's probably due to institutionalized inertia, or worse, is a clue that you're into crank bullshit. I very seldom drink alcohol beverages and I haven't been drunk in years. So Rajesh is wrong as usual. I wouldn't have bothered with you if I hadn't read your institutionalized intertia, or worse, comment. You probably feel like that about a bunch of stuff.

 

This is a set of interesting comments. Matt Strassler on Gerard 't Hooft's 'Cellular Automata and String Theory'. Plus comments by the great Garard 't Hooft himself. He's definitely on my modern great scientist list.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5022
The paper is the forth on the 't Hooft list posted by Q-reeus.
This is #8 on the list.
Quantum entangled states in a local deterministic theory
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408
Even the greatest can suffer a lack of interest in a specific work.
BTW does lack of citations = institutionalized inertia or worse? Of course not.

 

OK so not an alcoholic, but still not able or willing to read and properly interpret or portray the full context of what I wrote? Sigh. Nothing new here.

 

I know what you wrote. Sigh all you want crank.

 

Deliberate misrepresentation then. Nothing new here. And btw at least try and improve your (mis)quoting non-skills elsewhere, like in #273, where you attribute to Matt Strassler what was actually owing to Peter Woit. Also, there are massive numbers of 'cited by's' relating to various articles by various authors in that initial list I gave. You sure have a talent for missing things others couldn't no matter how hard they tried.

 

This: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 is 't Hooft's most recent paper on arxiv.

I'm not sure what he's trying to do, he does mention that quantum logic needs an update in his opinion.

If you try to fit QM to a Boolean kind of logic, statements like (x spin up or x spin down) and (y spin up or y spin down) don't distribute over x and y (the "classical" directions of spin measurement). But you can form a non-distributive lattice: a meet-join lattice (I've seen one).

So I want to see if 't Hooft has something along those lines; the logic of cellular automata is basically things that occupy cells (so everything is local) according to some finite algorithm. He claims that his approach recovers QFT at large scales.

Doesn't seem to have got much interest so far.
Here's a para from the Conclusions of the paper:

 

Just wanted to say hi to everyone who's been wondering where I've been. Been keeping very busy in last couple of weeks, lots of exciting stuff. I'm hoping to start discussing some actual Bell experiments soon, with references. The main thing I've been trying to establish agreement on before commencing, is that an experiment of the type described in Bell's theorem would be sufficient to rule out localized deterministic mechanics, and the only question is to see whether the real world experiments adequately reproduce the idealized conditions described in the theorem.

 

That would be the purpose of such an experiment. So my initial reply is yes.

 

Well that would be good.

There is a good article in Forbes that is pertinent. It supports all that you have been saying, and conveys the consensus view of non-locality:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorz...xperiments-that-show-quantum-physics-is-real/

However, the thing about particles is that they have wave-particle duality, and the presence of a wave-particle is caused by standing waves, i.e. the presence is established by inflowing and out flowing wave energy components in the particle space. That wave-particle duality is the exact aspect that the experiments are not considering, given that the apparatuses are composed of particles.

In my model, I maintain that not only do the entangled particles that are passed through the apparatuses have this duality, but also, all of the apparatuses are composed of particles. Those bound particles also have an outflowing wave energy component that spreads out from them at the speed of light and fills the space through which the experimental particles travel, right from the moment of entanglement to the moment of measurement. How do you detect and separate the effect of this ever present and accompanying out flowing wave energy from the apparatuses? And the out flowing wave energy has a density pattern that reveals, in advance, the nature of the apparatus that lies in the path ahead, hypothetically.