7 ms·

Your second statement, what do you mean? I’m not sure I’m understanding what you wrote.

by DSingularity 5y ago

GistNoesis 5y ago
Some people are flat-earther, I'm a Bell-theorem denier.
- eigenket 5y ago
  What do you think is happening in the experiments in 2015 in Delft, Vienna and Boulder and Rosenfeld et al. from 2017 (or any other Bell test you like)?
  - wizeman 5y ago
    I'm not a physicist so I could be wrong, but I think Bell's theorem assumes there is only one outcome for each measurement. If there can be many outcomes, like the Many Worlds Interpretation suggests, then I think there is the possibility that the "spooky action at a distance" is a result of purely local interactions.
    - ahelwer 5y ago
      Unfortunately you are indeed wrong. Bell's theorem works no matter the outcome of the measurement. We just see that some outcomes are more likely to occur than others. People in other universes would see different outcomes, but the overall distribution would be the same. I guess there could be some hideously improbable universe where every Bell test experiment ever performed lead to results not exceeding classical correlations, but that sure as hell isn't the universe we live in.
      - wizeman 5y ago
        While what you say makes sense superficially, I think you are not considering the possibility that the worlds interact with each other. Notice that in the double-slit experiment, the wave function at different places interacts with itself so as to lower the probability of a photon or electron arriving at a place where it was likelier to arrive with just one slit open. Informally speaking, that could be seen as an example of different "worlds" (i.e. different places where the photon could be observed to exist) interacting with each other locally so as to effectively lower the probability of observing the photon arriving at some place where it would be likelier to arrive had the different worlds not have interacted with each other. Taking the analogy a bit too far, this seems like if two different worlds interfere with each other so as to cancel each other out. Again, the photon/electron that was likely to arrive at some place, will not likely arrive anymore, and this is purely due to the the wave function interfering with itself. Wouldn't that mean that there is the possibility that the observed correlations in Bell's theorem could be the result of this phenomenon and not necessarily mean that there is non-local behavior? That is, couldn't the observed correlations be the result of the different worlds interfering with each other locally, e.g. when the light cones of the different measurements intersect each other, so that some worlds cancel each other out and we don't get to observe them, leading to the correlations that we do indeed observe? Bell's theorem, as far as I understand, only takes into account what we can observe, but could be falsified if there are "worlds" that we cannot observe, i.e. that are temporally created but stop existing when they cancel each other out by local interactions. Although, admittedly, I could be completely wrong because I don't understand enough of this to be sure of what I'm saying :)
  - GistNoesis 5y ago
    Statistics done by physicists based upon a wrong model is the root cause. The exact flaw changes from paper to paper. They are plenty of ways to get something wrong when you are not doing statistics carefully. It often comes down to the precise definition of what the experimenter for what a measurement is. One usual mishap is "involuntary post-sampling", by wrongfully ignoring some blips or discarding particle that don't fit the mold. The more complex the experiment trying to close a loop-hole the more probable the bug slips in.
    - eigenket 5y ago
      To clarify, have you actually seen any of these errors in the papers, or are you just hoping/believing/assuming they are there?
      - GistNoesis 5y ago
        Those paper don't have rigorous mathematical definition of what "probability measure" they use. From a mathematician perspective, the error is "incompatible probability measure" for events, that's why probability laws don't apply. Bell's theorem is exactly a well known mathematical theorem "Boole's inequality" which basically tells you, you are doing the math wrong when defining your measure.
        eigenket 5y ago
        If by Boole's inequality you mean the thing that I know as the union bound, then it is far from obvious to me that it is exactly the same as Bell's theorem. In fact they seem to me to be completely different. Boole's inequality also does not tell you "you're doing the math wrong when defining your measure", it tells you that the probability that either A or B happens is not greater than the sum of the probability of A happening and the probability of B happening. I'm not sure what you mean in the first part of your comment, could you indicate specifically what probability measure is defined incorrectly (or not defined) in (e.g.) this paper? https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949 https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949
      - GistNoesis 5y ago
- Der_Einzige 5y ago
  I always knew bells theorem would instill extreme amounts of butthurt in a certain group of people if they actually knew what it meant. Everytime I listen to somebody raffle off about determinism or the law of identity I remind them that bells theorem (there's real actual randomness) and it's corresponding no-cloning theorems proved objectively that the universe has real randomness, and that truly "cloning" an object (e.g. A=A) is literally impossible. Sorry that reality doesn't work the way that you want homie. Bells theorem is my favorite theorem because of this level of butthurt that it instills...
- myWindoonn 5y ago
  To take a different path from the existing subthread: Do you also doubt the Kochen-Specker lemma? Quantum contextuality cannot be dodged just by denying Bell's version; you also have to show that Kochen and Specker got their linear algebra wrong.

Your second statement, what do you mean? I’m not sure I’m understanding what you wrote.

GistNoesis 5y ago

Some people are flat-earther, I'm a Bell-theorem denier.

eigenket 5y ago
What do you think is happening in the experiments in 2015 in Delft, Vienna and Boulder and Rosenfeld et al. from 2017 (or any other Bell test you like)?
- wizeman 5y ago
  I'm not a physicist so I could be wrong, but I think Bell's theorem assumes there is only one outcome for each measurement. If there can be many outcomes, like the Many Worlds Interpretation suggests, then I think there is the possibility that the "spooky action at a distance" is a result of purely local interactions.
  - ahelwer 5y ago
    Unfortunately you are indeed wrong. Bell's theorem works no matter the outcome of the measurement. We just see that some outcomes are more likely to occur than others. People in other universes would see different outcomes, but the overall distribution would be the same. I guess there could be some hideously improbable universe where every Bell test experiment ever performed lead to results not exceeding classical correlations, but that sure as hell isn't the universe we live in.
    - wizeman 5y ago
      While what you say makes sense superficially, I think you are not considering the possibility that the worlds interact with each other. Notice that in the double-slit experiment, the wave function at different places interacts with itself so as to lower the probability of a photon or electron arriving at a place where it was likelier to arrive with just one slit open. Informally speaking, that could be seen as an example of different "worlds" (i.e. different places where the photon could be observed to exist) interacting with each other locally so as to effectively lower the probability of observing the photon arriving at some place where it would be likelier to arrive had the different worlds not have interacted with each other. Taking the analogy a bit too far, this seems like if two different worlds interfere with each other so as to cancel each other out. Again, the photon/electron that was likely to arrive at some place, will not likely arrive anymore, and this is purely due to the the wave function interfering with itself. Wouldn't that mean that there is the possibility that the observed correlations in Bell's theorem could be the result of this phenomenon and not necessarily mean that there is non-local behavior? That is, couldn't the observed correlations be the result of the different worlds interfering with each other locally, e.g. when the light cones of the different measurements intersect each other, so that some worlds cancel each other out and we don't get to observe them, leading to the correlations that we do indeed observe? Bell's theorem, as far as I understand, only takes into account what we can observe, but could be falsified if there are "worlds" that we cannot observe, i.e. that are temporally created but stop existing when they cancel each other out by local interactions. Although, admittedly, I could be completely wrong because I don't understand enough of this to be sure of what I'm saying :)
- GistNoesis 5y ago
  Statistics done by physicists based upon a wrong model is the root cause. The exact flaw changes from paper to paper. They are plenty of ways to get something wrong when you are not doing statistics carefully. It often comes down to the precise definition of what the experimenter for what a measurement is. One usual mishap is "involuntary post-sampling", by wrongfully ignoring some blips or discarding particle that don't fit the mold. The more complex the experiment trying to close a loop-hole the more probable the bug slips in.
  - eigenket 5y ago
    To clarify, have you actually seen any of these errors in the papers, or are you just hoping/believing/assuming they are there?
    - GistNoesis 5y ago
      Those paper don't have rigorous mathematical definition of what "probability measure" they use. From a mathematician perspective, the error is "incompatible probability measure" for events, that's why probability laws don't apply. Bell's theorem is exactly a well known mathematical theorem "Boole's inequality" which basically tells you, you are doing the math wrong when defining your measure.
      - eigenket 5y ago
        If by Boole's inequality you mean the thing that I know as the union bound, then it is far from obvious to me that it is exactly the same as Bell's theorem. In fact they seem to me to be completely different. Boole's inequality also does not tell you "you're doing the math wrong when defining your measure", it tells you that the probability that either A or B happens is not greater than the sum of the probability of A happening and the probability of B happening. I'm not sure what you mean in the first part of your comment, could you indicate specifically what probability measure is defined incorrectly (or not defined) in (e.g.) this paper? https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949 https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949
    - GistNoesis 5y ago
Der_Einzige 5y ago
I always knew bells theorem would instill extreme amounts of butthurt in a certain group of people if they actually knew what it meant. Everytime I listen to somebody raffle off about determinism or the law of identity I remind them that bells theorem (there's real actual randomness) and it's corresponding no-cloning theorems proved objectively that the universe has real randomness, and that truly "cloning" an object (e.g. A=A) is literally impossible. Sorry that reality doesn't work the way that you want homie. Bells theorem is my favorite theorem because of this level of butthurt that it instills...
myWindoonn 5y ago
To take a different path from the existing subthread: Do you also doubt the Kochen-Specker lemma? Quantum contextuality cannot be dodged just by denying Bell's version; you also have to show that Kochen and Specker got their linear algebra wrong.