Bell's Theorem and Nonlocality

[CptBork]

Ok, here's a brief overview and derivation:

Suppose I have an experiment involving two entangled photons which are set up to share the same unmeasured axis of electric field polarization (that is to say that whenever one photon is found to be polarized at a certain angle, the other photon is polarized along the same axis at the same or opposite angle, and likewise when the first photon is found to be polarized orthogonal to the angle of measurement). In the experiment, I will measure each of the entangled photons' polarizations at opposite ends of the lab, with random selectors at each end of the lab independently choosing the axis of polarization for the measurements at those ends. The choices of measurement axes at each end of the lab will occur near enough to the times of measurement such that these choices cannot be communicated between the photons with lightspeed signals until after they've been measured.

For this experiment, suppose I have a possibility of choosing between three different axes of measurement to check if the photons have electric field polarizations along those axes. Let's call them axes A, B and C, with (for simplicity) B and C being displaced from A by $$120^\circ$$ and $$240^\circ$$, respectively. According to any local hidden variable theory, we can measure a photon's polarization about one axis and then determine what we would have measured along another axis by measuring its entangled pair along the second axis, since the same polarization values are always yielded by both photons when measured along the same axis. Thus, for each axis we can define a hidden variable which tells us whether the photons have any polarization when measured along that axis, and these variables in turn depend on some set of deterministic variables belonging to the local hidden variable theory. If we separate the two ends of the lab sufficiently far apart, no lightspeed or slower signal can be exchanged between the two photons in order for the choice of a measurement axis (and subsequent measurement) at one end to affect the hidden variables possessed by the photon which is measured at the other end.

Each time a photon pair is generated, there are eight different hidden variable possibilities which will be denoted in the following form: {+A,+B,-C} denotes, as an example, the case where measurements along either axes A or B will yield photons with polarization along those axes, but measurements along axis C will yield none. Then we have eight possible scenarios for the hidden variables determining the polarization of each photon pair:

1. {+A,+B,+C}
2. {+A,+B,-C}
3. {+A,-B,+C}
4. {+A,-B,-C}
5. {-A,+B,+C}
6. {-A,+B,-C}
7. {-A,-B,+C}
8. {-A,-B,-C}

Are we all agreed so far?

 

[quantum_wave]

... you can't come on these forums and proclaim that your hypotheses don't contradict any known evidence, that would be disingenuous ...

If this isn't about a discussion, I don't trust you to have motives here that are anything I would want to be a part of any longer. You skipped over everything I said, and so you don't want to play it my way.

 

[CptBork]

If this isn't about a discussion, I don't trust you to have motives here that are anything I would want to be a part of any longer. You skipped over everything I said, and so you don't want to play it my way.

The last line of your previous post to me suggested that I should go ahead and begin walking you through the derivation, so I was trying to just keep things going on the right track and start the real in-depth discussion of the topic I discussed in the OP. Firstly, I don't have an opinion on whether or not time has an origin, I'm open to both ideas, and I believe that with some sort of pre-existing laws of physics already in place, the Big Bang would not constitute "something from nothing" even if it is indeed the origin of time. If I pretended to favour one idea over the other, I'd be lying and making things up on the spot; I simply don't know which view to prefer, and I don't see one as being more logical than the other. My personal views on the origins of the universe are not relevant to the topic at hand, because neither viewpoint contradicts it.

I know you want to discuss your personal cosmological ideas here in some sort of Bell's Theorem context, so I figure if I continue with the derivation step by step, you can show me at any point whether any of those views negate the argument. What we're dealing with here is an experimentally testable consequence of your assertions regarding the locality and determinism of nature, assertions which form the foundations underlying your speculation.

So please tell me whether or not you think the statements I've made so far regarding the setup of Bell's Theorem are reasonable, and if so, I'll proceed towards incorporating your hidden variable ideas to derive an experimental prediction. I think by now, at minimum you should easily be able to see that it's not a delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, but rather something you probably haven't considered before in detail.

 

[quantum_wave]

The last line of your previous post to me suggested that I should go ahead and begin walking you through the derivation, so I was trying to just keep things going on the right track and start the real in-depth discussion of the topic I discussed in the OP.

If I'm not mistaken, you were uncomfortable with the way our discussion about hidden variables ended back on cav766s thread, and you used that to derail my thread about an idea I brought to P&M. You never acknowledged that the speculation in my thread would, if the givens were fact, give us a possible explanation for dark energy. I wanted you to say it isn't true, i.e. falsify it.

You have since implied you couldn't falsify my speculation. You continually introduced conditions, that if were true, would make my use of the words space and energy wrong etc., and on that basis, my speculation would be inconsistent with the terminology of science, and so it couldn't be right, and for that matter, time might not have existed before the Big Bang and so the whole idea is moot. You used a variety of tactics to sidestep the issue.

Do you accept the idea that something can come from nothing, yes or no? Man up and take a stand because if you think that, you might be willing to accept spooky action at a distance, lol.

You started this thread to express your arguments about me saying that my hobby-model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. Can we agree I am right about you starting the thread for that reason?

The approach you are taking is that there are scientific observations and data that refute certain types of hidden variables interpretations of QM, the types that allow experiments that test locality and determinism under the conditions you are describing, and that explain the results, showing how they are consistent with the methods and meaning of QM, i.e. randomness, probability, and faster than light communication. Is that correct?

I said I was familiar with experiments that did that, and that are generally accepted to show that there are the two choices you mentioned in the OP:

1) A nonlocal hidden variable theory which generates time paradoxes in Relativity, or 2) quantum mechanics which, in its modern quantum field theory formulation, incorporates Special Relativity as a vital component, or else some other theory based on a probabilistic interpretation of the universe.

As I understand it, the Aspect experiment uses Bell's inequality to show non-locality must be a reality if I insist that the photon's have a physical presence at all times, which, if photons are wave-particles, then I think they do.

But you also slipped into the OP the impression that if you could describe the science as it stands, show the experiments, and how those two options were consistent with the outcome, you might "rule out some of quantum_wave's proposed ideas regarding cosmology".

That is why this thread includes my expression of exceptions to aspects of consensus theories showing where I find them inconsistent and/or incomplete. I am setting the stage to show that though the experiments that you are slowly laying out, that are similar to experiments explained in "Dance of the Photons", and that I have long been aware of, do not satisfy my layman sensitivities and sensibilities about locality, randomness and probability, as employed by QM.

Do the results that are taken as proof of either non-locality, or of the fact that particles can have superimposed states or maybe even don't exist between measurements, have a physical explanation? What is it, i.e. when the results reveal the "spooky action at a distance", what are the mechanics of how it works? I have mentioned twice now that I consider there to be a difference between explained observations and unexplained observations. I maintain the what we know about quantum mechanics is incomplete, and that the results are as yet unexplained.

In the OP, you also said that the value of Bell's Theorem is that it provides us with a way to conclusively demonstrate that nonlocal effects do indeed occur in nature, thus leaving us with only the two choices. I am on record to challenge the word "conclusively" in that assertion .

Firstly, I don't have an opinion on whether or not time has an origin, I'm open to both ideas, and I believe that with some sort of pre-existing laws of physics already in place, the Big Bang would not constitute "something from nothing" even if it is indeed the origin of time. If I pretended to favour one idea over the other, I'd be lying and making things up on the spot; I simply don't know which view to prefer, and I don't see one as being more logical than the other. My personal views on the origins of the universe are not relevant to the topic at hand, because neither viewpoint contradicts it.

I have developed my ideas based on those scenarios and the givens I have asked you to consider. In order to have some explanation for the cause of the Big Bang, for presence of matter, for the mechanics of gravity, many unknowns have to be addressed. Do you agree?

I know you want to discuss your personal cosmological ideas here in some sort of Bell's Theorem context, so I figure if I continue with the derivation step by step, you can show me at any point whether any of those views negate the argument.

In the path that I have taken to hypothesize solutions to the many unknowns that we encounter as we try to answer my questions, some aspects of currently accepted theories do not work together, are inconsistent, incompatible, and incomplete, in my layman view. Do you dispute that my view is correct in that regard?

I am not claiming to be able to falsify any current theories or the experiments at hand. Do you think I am claiming I can falsify them?

Further, do you think that any generally accepted science would change if we knew the answers to my rhetorical questions? Do you know what would change and how?

What we're dealing with here is an experimentally testable consequence of your assertions regarding the locality and determinism of nature, assertions which form the foundations underlying your speculation.

That is a misrepresentation of what my assertions are. You are dealing with experiments regarding the QM view of locality and determinism of nature, and the accepted view of the hidden variables interpretations. My view, as stated above, is that what we know about QM is incomplete. Have you read my thread where I address my views on the topic? If not, I inform you that you are misrepresenting what my assertions are.

So please tell me whether or not you think the statements I've made so far regarding the setup of Bell's Theorem are reasonable, and if so, I'll proceed towards incorporating your hidden variable ideas to derive an experimental prediction. I think by now, at minimum you should easily be able to see that it's not a delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, but rather something you probably haven't considered before in detail.

If you say what you are presenting is new to me, how are they new to me. What are the names of the experiments and the experimenters, and when were they done? Links please, if this is not a good reference: www.nature.com/srep/2013/130529/srep01914/full/srep01914.html

I don't think the outcome of the experiments falsifies the issue of locality, and I think that the nature of reality has a level of mechanical action that accounts for what the experiments conclude is evidence of non-locality.

 

[CptBork]

If I'm not mistaken, you were uncomfortable with the way our discussion about hidden variables ended back on cav766s thread, and you used that to derail my thread about an idea I brought to P&M.

I wasn't uncomfortable with it, I was downright upset that you came to a section intended for scientific discussion, posted your stuff and then ducked out just as I was about to challenge you on it regarding the subject we're here to discuss now.

You never acknowledged that the speculation in my thread would, if the givens were fact, give us a possible explanation for dark energy. I wanted you to say it isn't true, i.e. falsify it.

If your assumptions are indeed fact, then it's entirely possible that the speculation you attempt to base on those assumptions could explain dark energy or any other property of the universe (although there are zillions of other possible explanations, some of which accurately predict just about everything we already know and make detailed, precise predictions about things yet to be measured). I will not in any way pretend that I think your approach is wise, well-informed or has any realistic chance of accurately describing anything that actually exists, and it's your job to prove me wrong. This thread is not about dark energy (unless it somehow relates to Bell's Theorem), the thread is about challenging some of your assumptions by comparing them to experimental fact.

You have since implied you couldn't falsify my speculation.

If you'll let me continue with the derivation, I believe I can indeed falsify your speculation, and that's why I mentioned Bell's Theorem in the first place way back when this dispute started. My idea is to finish the math proof, and then if your speculation in any way violates any of the assumptions in this proof, you can specify your objections and we can discuss them.

Do you accept the idea that something can come from nothing, yes or no? Man up and take a stand because if you think that, you might be willing to accept spooky action at a distance, lol.

Unlike you, I don't believe we can deduce things about concepts that may well exceed the limits of human comprehension, let alone things we haven't yet measured that don't logically follow from any known facts. "I don't know" is the only answer you're going to get from me about the origins of the universe until you can give me a convincing reason to think otherwise. As for "spooky action at a distance", if you'll allow me to proceed with the derivation of Bell's Theorem, then I believe I can show it to be an experimental fact.

You started this thread to express your arguments about me saying that my hobby-model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. Can we agree I'm am right about that?

If you're asking whether I can agree on the purpose of the thread, then yes. If you're asking whether I can agree that your hobby model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with known science, then most definitely not (and if you'll allow me to proceed, I will demonstrate the reasons for some of my objections).

The approach you are taking is that there are scientific observations and data that refute certain types of hidden variables interpretations of QM, the types that allow experiments that test locality and determinism under the conditions you are describing, and that explain the results, showing how they are consistent with the methods and meaning of QM, i.e. randomness, probability, and faster than light communication. Is that correct?

The idea is that virtually any hidden variable theory is ruled out except the ones that either treat scientific experimentation as a giant global conspiracy, or that attribute everything in the universe to an utterly absurd and completely unpredictable sequence of coincidences. If you'll please allow me to continue with the derivation, then you can tell me if you think any hidden variable theories escape the resulting conclusions and how they do so.

I said I was familiar with experiments that did that, and that are generally accepted to show that there are the two choices you mentioned in the OP:

1) A nonlocal hidden variable theory which generates time paradoxes in Relativity, or 2) quantum mechanics which, in its modern quantum field theory formulation, incorporates Special Relativity as a vital component, or else some other theory based on a probabilistic interpretation of the universe.

As I understand it, the Aspect experiment uses Bell's inequality to show non-locality must be a reality if I insist that the photon's have a physical presence at all times, which, if photons are wave-particles, then I think they do.

Why would you want to be familiar with vague concepts and misunderstandings, when I can give you the precise implications and justifications right here in language and mathematics that you'll have no trouble understanding? Once again, if you'll allow me to continue with the derivation, any objections you have can be stated in response to my postulates and deductions, which is far better than simply listing all your possible objections up front before I've even stated anything concrete.

That is why this thread includes my expression of exceptions to aspects of consensus theories showing where I find them inconsistent and/or incomplete. I am setting the stage to show that though the experiments that you are slowly laying out, that are similar to experiments explained in "Dance of the Photons", and that I have long been aware of, do not satisfy my layman sensitivities and sensibilities about locality, randomness and probability, as employed by QM.

Whatever objections you may have, we can only deal with them when we compare them against the specific postulates and tests of Bell's Theorem, rather than layman overviews. I'd like to remind everyone that layman literature is only meant to give a very brief, simplified and condensed overview of what physicists do and to sketch a picture of how they presently view the universe; layman books aren't written with the intention of giving the reader sufficient knowledge to argue against the underlying theories and facts, they're not meant to be read as substitutes for lectures, demonstrations and textbooks.

I have mentioned twice now that I consider there to be a difference between explained observations and unexplained observations. I maintain the what we know about quantum mechanics is incomplete, and that the results are as yet unexplained.

The point of this thread isn't about establishing whether your hobby model has the capability to address the inconsistencies in modern science and personal/philosophical objections to its conclusions, the thread is about whether your speculation meets the criteria of being reasonable and responsible.

In the OP, you also said that the value of Bell's Theorem is that it provides us with a way to conclusively demonstrate that nonlocal effects do indeed occur in nature, thus leaving us with only the two choices. I am on record to challenge the word "conclusively" in that assertion .

Good, so once again can I please proceed to the derivation so that you can challenge something specific about the theorem rather than simply balking at its conclusions? I'd be very interested if you can falsify any of it, given that the logic is quite simple and it makes only the most basic assumptions about the local hidden variable model being tested.

I have developed my ideas based on those scenarios and the givens I have asked you to consider. In order to have some explanation for the cause of the Big Bang, for presence of matter, for the mechanics of gravity, many unknowns have to be addressed. Do you agree?

No, I don't believe things like the Big Bang necessarily need a cause, although they might. Nor do I believe there is necessarily anything more to say about spacetime or quantum probabilities other than tying up loose ends and inconsistencies. I think it's extremely arrogant to insist that these concepts all need underlying concepts and explanations, as if humans were capable of understanding everything about existence. Even the picture of infinite time offers no explanation for why the universe exists or why it has to be the way it is and not other ways, and it leaves open philosophical questions about how we get to the present moment if the universe has an infinite history.

Unlike you, I choose to keep an open mind about such things until someone comes up with a damn good reason not to keep an open mind, and loose hand-wavey layman speculation sure ain't going to do it. Hobby modeling is one thing, convincing people that your model (or any statement contained therein) is the only possibility, is something else entirely. If you can show me how your assumptions avoid the deduced conclusions of Bell's Theorem and its tests, that would make for an excellent start.

In the path that I have taken to hypothesize solutions to the many unknowns that we encounter as we try to answer my questions, some aspects of currently accepted theories do not work together, are inconsistent, incompatible, and incomplete, in my layman view. Do you dispute that my view is correct in that regard?

I believe that there are inconsistencies between General Relativity and the Standard Model in their present forms (or at least we haven't figured out an adequate renormalization scheme for successfully merging them), and I believe that there are certain phenomena in the universe not well modeled or predicted by those theories. That's all I can agree with; the idea that present physics is "incomplete" is pure speculation in my eye, until you can demonstrate a more complete model that better matches some aspect of measurable reality.

I am not claiming to be able to falsify any current theories or the experiments at hand. Do you think I am claiming I can falsify them?

Well it seems like you're claiming you can falsify the results of Bell's Theorem (by producing a local hidden variable theory which contradicts it), and to claim that General Relativity and QM are incomplete is to claim that their assumptions are fundamentally incorrect on some level and thus falsifiable.

Further, do you think that any generally accepted science would change if we knew the answers to my rhetorical questions? Do you know what would change and how?

If you could demonstrate how a local hidden variable theory can escape the conclusions and tests of Bell's Theorem, or that there is something fundamentally impossible about time having a beginning or spacetime having no underlying mechanism or whatever, then of course it would change science in huge ways, we'd have to throw out a lot of the things we thought were beaten to death and refocus research efforts to look at more of the things you believe to be worthy of their time.

If you say what you are presenting is new to me, how are they new to me. What are the names of the experiments and the experimenters, and when were they done? Links please, if this is not a good reference: www.nature.com/srep/2013/130529/srep01914/full/srep01914.html

I gave you a link with a good overview of Bell's Theorem in your other active thread, did you even bother to click on it? You claim you have a workaround for Bell's Theorem and other issues people claim to disprove your speculation, so if what I'm presenting isn't new to you, then you should be able to show me a workaround I haven't considered and already ruled out (or show me why it's wrong to rule out). Once again, these are all issues we can get to if you'll please let me go ahead and complete my derivation.

 

[quantum_wave]

I wasn't uncomfortable with it, I was downright upset that you came to a section intended for scientific discussion, posted your stuff and then ducked out just as I was about to challenge you on it regarding the subject we're here to discuss now.



If your assumptions are indeed fact, then it's entirely possible that the speculation you attempt to base on those assumptions could explain dark energy or any other property of the universe (although there are zillions of other possible explanations, some of which accurately predict just about everything we already know and make detailed, precise predictions about things yet to be measured). I will not in any way pretend that I think your approach is wise, well-informed or has any realistic chance of accurately describing anything that actually exists, and it's your job to prove me wrong. This thread is not about dark energy (unless it somehow relates to Bell's Theorem), the thread is about challenging some of your assumptions by comparing them to experimental fact.



If you'll let me continue with the derivation, I believe I can indeed falsify your speculation, and that's why I mentioned Bell's Theorem in the first place way back when this dispute started. My idea is to finish the math proof, and then if your speculation in any way violates any of the assumptions in this proof, you can specify your objections and we can discuss them.



Unlike you, I don't believe we can deduce things about concepts that may well exceed the limits of human comprehension, let alone things we haven't yet measured that don't logically follow from any known facts. "I don't know" is the only answer you're going to get from me about the origins of the universe until you can give me a convincing reason to think otherwise. As for "spooky action at a distance", if you'll allow me to proceed with the derivation of Bell's Theorem, then I believe I can show it to be an experimental fact.



If you're asking whether I can agree on the purpose of the thread, then yes. If you're asking whether I can agree that your hobby model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with known science, then most definitely not (and if you'll allow me to proceed, I will demonstrate the reasons for some of my objections).



The idea is that virtually any hidden variable theory is ruled out except the ones that either treat scientific experimentation as a giant global conspiracy, or that attribute everything in the universe to an utterly absurd and completely unpredictable sequence of coincidences. If you'll please allow me to continue with the derivation, then you can tell me if you think any hidden variable theories escape the resulting conclusions and how they do so.



Why would you want to be familiar with vague concepts and misunderstandings, when I can give you the precise implications and justifications right here in language and mathematics that you'll have no trouble understanding? Once again, if you'll allow me to continue with the derivation, any objections you have can be stated in response to my postulates and deductions, which is far better than simply listing all your possible objections up front before I've even stated anything concrete.



Whatever objections you may have, we can only deal with them when we compare them against the specific postulates and tests of Bell's Theorem, rather than layman overviews. I'd like to remind everyone that layman literature is only meant to give a very brief, simplified and condensed overview of what physicists do and to sketch a picture of how they presently view the universe; layman books aren't written with the intention of giving the reader sufficient knowledge to argue against the underlying theories and facts, they're not meant to be read as substitutes for lectures, demonstrations and textbooks.



The point of this thread isn't about establishing whether your hobby model has the capability to address the inconsistencies in modern science and personal/philosophical objections to its conclusions, the thread is about whether your speculation meets the criteria of being reasonable and responsible.



Good, so once again can I please proceed to the derivation so that you can challenge something specific about the theorem rather than simply balking at its conclusions? I'd be very interested if you can falsify any of it, given that the logic is quite simple and it makes only the most basic assumptions about the local hidden variable model being tested.



No, I don't believe things like the Big Bang necessarily need a cause, although they might. Nor do I believe there is necessarily anything more to say about spacetime or quantum probabilities other than tying up loose ends and inconsistencies. I think it's extremely arrogant to insist that these concepts all need underlying concepts and explanations, as if humans were capable of understanding everything about existence. Even the picture of infinite time offers no explanation for why the universe exists or why it has to be the way it is and not other ways, and it leaves open philosophical questions about how we get to the present moment if the universe has an infinite history.

Unlike you, I choose to keep an open mind about such things until someone comes up with a damn good reason not to keep an open mind, and loose hand-wavey layman speculation sure ain't going to do it. Hobby modeling is one thing, convincing people that your model (or any statement contained therein) is the only possibility, is something else entirely. If you can show me how your assumptions avoid the deduced conclusions of Bell's Theorem and its tests, that would make for an excellent start.



I believe that there are inconsistencies between General Relativity and the Standard Model in their present forms (or at least we haven't figured out an adequate renormalization scheme for successfully merging them), and I believe that there are certain phenomena in the universe not well modeled or predicted by those theories. That's all I can agree with; the idea that present physics is "incomplete" is pure speculation in my eye, until you can demonstrate a more complete model that better matches some aspect of measurable reality.



Well it seems like you're claiming you can falsify the results of Bell's Theorem (by producing a local hidden variable theory which contradicts it), and to claim that General Relativity and QM are incomplete is to claim that their assumptions are fundamentally incorrect on some level and thus falsifiable.



If you could demonstrate how a local hidden variable theory can escape the conclusions and tests of Bell's Theorem, or that there is something fundamentally impossible about time having a beginning or spacetime having no underlying mechanism or whatever, then of course it would change science in huge ways, we'd have to throw out a lot of the things we thought were beaten to death and refocus research efforts to look at more of the things you believe to be worthy of their time.



I gave you a link with a good overview of Bell's Theorem in your other active thread, did you even bother to click on it? You claim you have a workaround for Bell's Theorem and other issues people claim to disprove your speculation, so if what I'm presenting isn't new to you, then you should be able to show me a workaround I haven't considered and already ruled out (or show me why it's wrong to rule out). Once again, these are all issues we can get to if you'll please let me go ahead and complete my derivation.

There are so many things wrong with your response that I am not even going to try to sort them out. Not interested in your personal vendetta, don't care what you say, I have shown that you are not an honest agent for discussion, and you have repeatedly confirmed as much.

 

[CptBork]

There are so many things wrong with your response that I am not even going to try to sort them out. Not interested in your personal vendetta, don't care what you say, I have shown that you are not an honest agent for discussion, and you have repeatedly confirmed as much.

You said you can show that I'm wrong to rule out all local hidden variable theories, so instead of arguing with my personal views, why don't you show me where my derivation is wrong or fails to apply? How about it, can I please continue to the next part so you can state any objections to the deduction?

I'll have you know that the moderators are no longer tolerating claims about evidence, or consistency with that evidence, that don't attempt to address the counterclaims and objections, not in the Physics & Math section and not here either.

 

[Quantum Quack]

or that there is something fundamentally impossible about time having a beginning

There can be no before time began as to say so generates a serious logical fallacy.

To have something before time is created implies immediately a another span of time and this is not possible.
The logic associated with this in a reality based context is hugely difficult to intellectually accommodate.
Due to the fact that we humans and our minds are "time existent orientated" we simply can not consider a before time began other than that of metaphor or poetry.
We can say that "before the future arrived", as this implies a past and present.
To say there may be "a time" before time is created is logically fallacious and akin to suggesting "pigs may fly" IMO

 

[CptBork]

Obviously there can be no time before time exists, otherwise there would be no point in saying that time has a beginning. Whether or not time began at the Big Bang is a matter of dispute in modern physics. All I can say is I see no fundamental problems with either viewpoint, time either having a beginning or going back infinitely far.

 

[Farsight]

Quantum_wave: take a look at J.S. Bell's Concept of Local Causality by Travis Norsen:

"Many textbooks and commentators report that Bell's theorem refutes the possibility (suggested especially by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with additional ("hidden") variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. On this view, Bell's theorem supports the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Bell's own view of his theorem, however, was quite different..."

There's a whole load of hogwash talked about Bell by people who peddle quantum mysticism. Here's some quotes from Bell himself:

"It may well be that a relativistic version of [quantum] theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level.”

"I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether".

Compare that with Einstein's Leyden address, where he spoke of space as "an aether". He said it wasn't nothing, and that instead it's something: "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether". Think of space as something like a ghostly gin-clear elastic. Really, see the shear stress in the stress-energy-momentum tensor, and remember that people talk about curved space. Get a stress-ball, squeeze it down in your fist, then let go. Think of the expanding universe as something like that.

 

[CptBork]

Why resort to some layman's stupid arguments by quote mining, when I can go through the whole derivation of Bell's Theorem right here in mathematical detail?

 

[PhysBang]

Because Quantum_wave is right not to trust you. Because it isn't a layman's stupid argument. Because Bell said what he said.

"Because Bell said what he said," is a textbook example of a poor layman's argument, especially in a physics discussion where there are many, many clearly better arguments that use a small amount of mathematics to clearly communicate the content of the theory, not commentary on the theory by its author. Sometimes authors embellish their work, so it is helpful to review the actual work and try to understand it (even if that means that there will be mathematics), not cherry-pick quotations.

And because you're a dismissive dishonest naysayer whose physics knowledge is poor.

And you are clearly here to insult people, make yourself look good, and avoid learning physics. If you can't do the math, you can't do the physics.

 

[Spellbound]

There can be no before time began as to say so generates a serious logical fallacy.

To have something before time is created implies immediately a another span of time and this is not possible.
The logic associated with this in a reality based context is hugely difficult to intellectually accommodate.
Due to the fact that we humans and our minds are "time existent orientated" we simply can not consider a before time began other than that of metaphor or poetry.
We can say that "before the future arrived", as this implies a past and present.
To say there may be "a time" before time is created is logically fallacious and akin to suggesting "pigs may fly" IMO

Yes, time is real. And what is real?

 

[Trippy]

Moderator Note:
Digression split.
Missing posts can be found here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141645-bells-theorem-split

 

[Farsight]

Why resort to some layman's stupid arguments by quote mining, when I can go through the whole derivation of Bell's Theorem right here in mathematical detail?

Note to moderator: deal with this too. He's dismissing what Bell said and saying I'm a stupid layman. Deal with PhysBang's abuse too.

 

[przyk]

Quantum_wave: take a look at J.S. Bell's Concept of Local Causality by Travis Norsen:

"Many textbooks and commentators report that Bell's theorem refutes the possibility (suggested especially by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with additional ("hidden") variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. On this view, Bell's theorem supports the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Bell's own view of his theorem, however, was quite different..."

There's a whole load of hogwash talked about Bell by people who peddle quantum mysticism.

No there isn't. Norsen's article was intended as a pedagogical introduction to Bell's theorem explaining Bell's own views and motivations and drawing heavily from some of Bell's later publications on the subject. He wasn't denouncing "hogwash" or "quantum mysticism" (which, to the extent that it exists, has little to do with Bell's theorem anyway). His intent was rather to clear up some residual confusion about the specifics of what Bell's theorem is about and what can be drawn from it, as well as some possible confusion about Bell's motivations.

Incidentally, I would highly recommend Norsen's article for anyone here interested in learning about Bell's theorem. It really is a cleaner and in some ways more powerful result than it is often given credit for.

Here's some quotes from Bell himself:

"It may well be that a relativistic version of [quantum] theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level.”

"I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether".

Compare that with Einstein's Leyden address, where he spoke of space as "an aether". He said it wasn't nothing, and that instead it's something: "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether". Think of space as something like a ghostly gin-clear elastic. Really, see the shear stress in the stress-energy-momentum tensor, and remember that people talk about curved space. Get a stress-ball, squeeze it down in your fist, then let go. Think of the expanding universe as something like that.

Bell's theorem has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. Bell's own view was that his theorem indicated a potentially disturbing incompatibility between quantum physics and relativistic causality, and not that it implied space was an "aether" or anything like that. Even there, that Bell expressed this view does not mean anyone reading it is obligated to agree with it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes, time is real. And what is real?

The problem that I was alluding to is that when you push the boundaries of logic to their very limit it is very easy to end up in a sort of pseudo lah lah land where a "before time began" is possible.
So when CptBork, quite conventionally, states that he/she holds neither view, as to whether time began or not he/she is referring to this logical boundary and implying that the impossible is indeed possible. Thus validating the possibility of a "flying pig" by proxy.
so logically this leaves us with the only one possibility...and that time has no beginning. Logically it can be no other way unless flying pigs are invoked...
For the human mind to consider the past as being infinite in duration is considerably daunting, more so than considering infinite size etc...

Other logical issues ensue such as "repeatability factors.

ie. Has this 14billion years or so all happened an infinite number of times before and so on...so it is incredibly mind blowing to grapple with logically.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The problem that I was alluding to is that when you push the boundaries of logic to their very limit it is very easy to end up in a sort of pseudo lah lah land where a "before time began" is possible.
So when CptBork, quite conventionally, states that he/she holds neither view, as to whether time began or not he/she is referring to this logical boundary and implying that the impossible is indeed possible. Thus validating the possibility of a "flying pig" by proxy.
so logically this leaves us with the only one possibility...and that time has no beginning. Logically it can be no other way unless flying pigs are invoked...
For the human mind to consider the past as being infinite in duration is considerably daunting, more so than considering infinite size etc...

Other logical issues ensue such as "repeatability factors.

ie. Has this 14billion years or so all happened an infinite number of times before and so on...so it is incredibly mind blowing to grapple with logically.

Pick an object.

The object you picked is a component of a component of a component etc..., and is made of components of components of components etc...

The universe is an object...

 

[CptBork]

So when CptBork, quite conventionally, states that he/she holds neither view, as to whether time began or not he/she is referring to this logical boundary and implying that the impossible is indeed possible. Thus validating the possibility of a "flying pig" by proxy.

This is one of the dumbest and most nonsensical things you've said of late. Please don't put words in my mouth, and please keep your rambling about time in the thread you already started for it, this thread is about Bell's Theorem.

 

[CptBork]

Well I've tried hard to get quantum_wave to participate in this thread in a meaningful way, but I haven't had much luck so far pinning him down. (Edit: looks like he might be joining us shortly) I'm going to continue with the derivation here in order to derive a prediction that applies to all claims about local hidden variable theories, including his own.

Continuing from post #21, we have 8 possibilities:

1. {+A,+B,+C}
2. {+A,+B,-C}
3. {+A,-B,+C}
4. {+A,-B,-C}
5. {-A,+B,+C}
6. {-A,+B,-C}
7. {-A,-B,+C}
8. {-A,-B,-C}

Our apparatus is set so that each particle in the pair is checked for polarization on one of the three axes A, B and C, and since both particles are known to always have the same polarization values when checked at the same angles, we know that checking the polarization on one particle tells us what we would have measured if we had checked the other particle's polarization at the same angle, and that any measurements on one particle won't have sufficient time to affect the hidden variables controlling the other particle (locality). Thus we're able to simultaneously determine up to two of the hidden variables that tell us whether either particle is going to be detected as polarized if checked at one of those angles.

Suppose now that the measurement apparatus at each end of the lab is set to randomly and independently alternate between the three measurement angles A, B and C, in such a way that each angle is checked approximately 1/3 of the time at either end. We know that whenever both measurement axes are set to the same angle, we always get the same polarization (either polarized at the angle, "+", or not polarized, "-"), so we're only interested in looking at events in which the apparatii were set to different angles. Out of this restricted data set, 1/3 of the time we'll be looking at angles A and B, 1/3 of the time it will be A and C, 1/3 of the time is will be B and C. I'm going to abbreviate these measurement pairs as AB, AC and BC.

Suppose a collection of particle pairs are generated with hidden variables corresponding to either scenarios 1 or 8. In that case, regardless of which angle pair we look at, there will always be a correlation in the polarization values. That is to say, if we count the number of instances that either "+" or "-" polarization is measured for both particles in a pair, we find that the values match 100% of the time. On the other hand, if we look at scenario 2, a correlation is found when we measure AB, but anti-correlations are found for measurements AC and BC, so we only find a correlation in the measured polarization values 33% of the time. Similarly, scenarios 3-7 also yield measurement correlations 33% of the time.

Now we don't know how often we'll generate particle pairs whose hidden variable settings match scenario 1 nor any of the other 7 scenarios. Details like this depend on how the particle pairs are generated, as well as the particulars of the local hidden variable theory which describes how those values are set. What we do know, however, regardless of the particulars stipulated by the local hidden variable theory, is that regardless of what scenarios we encounter in whatever frequencies, at least 33% of the time our measurements will yield correlations for the measured polarization values.

Thus I have proven the following claim: quantum_wave's speculation about local hidden variables, like all other local hidden variable theories, requires that we detect correlations between the particle polarizations at different angles at least 33% of the time. I intend to proceed to show how this prediction is in clear contradiction with well-established experiments dating all the way back to 1981, and therefore falsifies quantum_wave's speculation/claims about local determinism, but I'd first like to give him an opportunity to offer some feedback and search for loopholes in my argument.