3 ms·
Non-locality seems to be the least favorable way to resolve the Bell inequalities as far as most physicists are concerned. I'm not sure why though. I think they
by phkahler 4y ago
Non-locality seems to be the least favorable way to resolve the Bell inequalities as far as most physicists are concerned. I'm not sure why though. I think they like exotic and unintuitive sounding stuff.
- consilient 4y ago> I think they like exotic and unintuitive sounding stuff. Exactly the opposite, nonlocality is by far the most exotic resolution here. It means losing existence and uniqueness of solutions to differential equations - i.e., causation.
- NoThisIsMe 4y agoCould you expand on this, or provide a source? I don't see how physics could yield a pure math result like that.
- consilient 4y agoOther way around. Of course physics has nothing to do with whether a theorem is true or false - but it has everything to do with whether our universe satisfies that theorem's hypotheses.
- n4r9 4y agoI'm also struggling to make sense of what you're saying. Non-local measurement outcomes have very little to do with causality. Are you arguing against specific interpretations such as Bohmian mechanics, which require privileged space–time foliations?
- phkahler 4y ago>> Exactly the opposite, nonlocality is by far the most exotic resolution here. I think a multiverse, or anything "spooky at a distance" or the other stuff is exotic. Non-locality does take away our ability to do experiments in isolation I suppose, which is kind of a big problem, but it is limited to certain kinds of experiments and not (seemingly) relevant at larger scales.