4 ms·

> the particle is not choosing a locally determined, pre-existing value as in classical mechanics Translation: The value of to entangled measurements does not

> the particle is not choosing a locally determined, pre-existing value as in classical mechanics Translation: The value of to entangled measurements does not allow inference of a value back in time. > What you believe after that comes down to which "comforting illusion" you are most willing to ditch. You should drop the illusion that even 1% reading here understand enough relativity theory to even understand the problem. I don't. I took a few crash courses on physics and they tried to teach the double slit experiment to us in the second semester. Of course they had to cut it short and call it "magic". Of course even scientists parrot popular science when explaining only the difficulties they face, not the exact physics, I guess. All this local hidden variable stuff seems like a version of Laplace's demon. Well of course you don't have enough data. There could always be another hidden variable. But instead QC takes a statistical approach like thermodynamics, ignoring single states and looking at, ironically speaking, the bigger picture. > What you believe after that comes down to which "comforting illusion" you are most willing to ditch. There's no illusion to ditch. You start with a null hypothesis, so the problem is which null hypothesis to fall back on. To ditch a hypothesis you need to understand the experiments in question and the math. The philosphy is an after thought to rationalize the results, but it doesn't matter much to e.g. the material scientists doing the field work, and vice versa, the level of precision of these measurements is so far removed from our every day understanding that it really has no bearing on Multiverse Theories and all that popular nonsense. By the way, non-local hidden variables have not been ruled out. Where's the difference, distance (ie. locality) might just be a matter of more than 4 dimensions?! Maybe I misunderstand. Different question. Why is time always the independent variable? I think the problem is that people like things linear, first order, because I have a huge problem imagining differential equations, recursion and what not, even OEDs, not to mention PDEs.

n4r9 8y ago
You don't need to understand even special relativity to learn about Bell's theorem. It's just about measurement settings and local influence. You're correct that non-local hidden variable theories are still plausible. Bohmian mechanics is the prominent example. In this case "locality" is the comfortable illusion that you drop. In Copenhagen it is a kind of realism. In Many Worlds it is the notion that an observation leads to a single result. There's no clear way to determine which of these is more like a "null hypothesis" than the others, so what tends to happen is that people gravitate towards one or another based on which of the illusions they're more okay with dropping. It would be nice to be able to discriminate between interpretations based on experiment, and a little work has been done on this, but we're not really anywhere near there yet.
- posterboy 8y ago
  I wrote under the impression that locality would rely on a notion of space-time. wiki/Local_realism says as much. That then is one notion to knock down. The null hypothesis here would be non-locality. Unifying that with GR is the big problem, I hear, especially regarding gravity.
  - n4r9 8y ago
    Without some notion of space-time you could not have a meaningful notion of locality, therefore Bell's Theorem is a non-issue. But you don't need a relativistic space-time for Bell's Theorem, any space-time in which physical influences travel at a bounded speed will suffice. Bell's Theorem does, however, create an uneasy tension between quantum theory and special relativity. Tim Maudlin writes quite a good book about this called "Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity".

n4r9 8y ago

You don't need to understand even special relativity to learn about Bell's theorem. It's just about measurement settings and local influence. You're correct that non-local hidden variable theories are still plausible. Bohmian mechanics is the prominent example. In this case "locality" is the comfortable illusion that you drop. In Copenhagen it is a kind of realism. In Many Worlds it is the notion that an observation leads to a single result. There's no clear way to determine which of these is more like a "null hypothesis" than the others, so what tends to happen is that people gravitate towards one or another based on which of the illusions they're more okay with dropping. It would be nice to be able to discriminate between interpretations based on experiment, and a little work has been done on this, but we're not really anywhere near there yet.

posterboy 8y ago
I wrote under the impression that locality would rely on a notion of space-time. wiki/Local_realism says as much. That then is one notion to knock down. The null hypothesis here would be non-locality. Unifying that with GR is the big problem, I hear, especially regarding gravity.
- n4r9 8y ago
  Without some notion of space-time you could not have a meaningful notion of locality, therefore Bell's Theorem is a non-issue. But you don't need a relativistic space-time for Bell's Theorem, any space-time in which physical influences travel at a bounded speed will suffice. Bell's Theorem does, however, create an uneasy tension between quantum theory and special relativity. Tim Maudlin writes quite a good book about this called "Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity".