5 ms·

The Bell's Inequalities are a test for the capacity for inductive reasoning of the pupil. If the pupil succeed he is not to be admitted to join the ranks of qua

The Bell's Inequalities are a test for the capacity for inductive reasoning of the pupil. If the pupil succeed he is not to be admitted to join the ranks of quantum physicist. You usually show a pupil the problem with classical probabilities, and show that you can't violate Bell's Inequalities, then you show that Quantum Mechanics managed to replicated the observed probabilities using a non-local way, and therefore you conclude that the world is non-local. But this logic doesn't stand. You need to use inductive reasoning to see it through. Ask yourself the question, what change would it take to your theory to make it local and still replicate the observed probabilities (and still look reasonable). Solve the riddle (it's quite beautiful once you see it :) ) and you will be rewarded with the awesome title of crackpot physicist, pitted against other dubious crackpot physicist each convinced their loopholes are the ones and only.

gus_massa 2y ago
> and therefore you conclude that the world is non-local. No, Bell's inequality has a few sensible assumtions, like locality. The conclusion is that at least one of them is wrong and real world is a sensible one :(. By the way, there is this crazy thing call QM that nobody likes but gives accurate results.
- GistNoesis 2y ago
  Just because there is a way, doesn't make it the only way. >but gives accurate results. Giving accurate results is missing the point. Hint: The point is understanding how nature's does it. Here is the Chesterton's fence implied by Bell's Inequality : Lemma: There exist a local classical simulator that allows to simulate a universe that behaves according to the probabilities of QM. Corollary : we can simulate "fast" a universe which behaves (in law) exactly like our universe. Nota Bene : This doesn't mean we can compute QM probabilities fast, (we can't), although one way of computing them would be to use Montecarlo estimation on various instances of universe simulations. The question is not whether to lift the fence, or how to lift the fence, the question is how are numerical biological instabilities handled.
  - Joker_vD 2y ago
    > Giving accurate results is missing the point. No, that's the central point of modern (starting with Newton) physical science. In fact, I'd argue that's the main reason for the astonishing advances of the physics in mere 300 years: people stopped bothering too much about philosophical underpinning of reality and started to fucking measure the reality instead, as precisely and accurately as they could and then some. Fresnel's optics won over Newton's not because of its superior philosophical merits (it needs luminiferous aether to be a perfectly rigid incompressible solid, after all), but simply because it very accurately described light's interference, diffraction, all kinds of refraction and the accompanying polarization, and also dispersion, all in one nice, self-contained package. That's what mattered, not the ridiculousness or reasonableness of proposition that light corpuscles have poles and can experience fits of easy transmission/reflection. > Hint: The point is understanding how nature's does it. By being itself, how else? /s
eigenket 2y ago
> You usually show a pupil the problem with classical probabilities, and show that you can't violate Bell's Inequalities, then you show that Quantum Mechanics managed to replicated the observed probabilities using a non-local way, and therefore you conclude that the world is non-local. If you do this you're doing a bad job at being a teacher. The way the argument should go is you start with a list of assumptions (of which locality is one), derive Bell's inequality from them, and determine that as Bell's inequality seems to be false in real experiments at least one of your assumptions was wrong. Then you can talk about quantum mechanics and explain which of these assumption are broken in quantum mechanics. If you have time you can have fun talking about different interpretations of quantum mechanics because (e.g.) Everettian Many Worlds is completely local, but still produces predictions matching quantum mechanics (and therefore breaks Bell's inequality).
- GistNoesis 2y ago
  >If you do this you're doing a bad job at being a teacher. If this wasn't sufficiently clear, I am not a teacher, I am a crackpot physicist. Hint : Listing the assumptions doesn't work. This is what I call the three-card monte argument. The ball is not under one of the three goblets, the ball is in the sleeve of the magician.
  - eigenket 2y ago
    > Hint : Listing the assumptions doesn't work Why not? I could see that it might not if you are not clear about your assumptions
    - GistNoesis 2y ago
      It's circular reasoning, hidden in the definition of your assumptions. By defining not clearly what a measurement is and observations are. You must let the cat step out of the box your definitions put you in. You have infinite freedom in your choices of definitions, listing assumptions is creating a false dichotomy. Especially when doing so conclude to exclude the most probable assumption : Locality. Preserve locality, and find another self consistent theory which define properly what according to it a measurement is, an not take measurement and observations as axioms.
hnax 2y ago
This 'crackpot physicist' is still alive and kicking and, indeed, as per the (analytical) induction requirement to make the case, his work deserves a careful reading to assume the geometric algebraic understanding of QM (for the 'crackpot's latest, see: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joy-christian-oxford_comment-on-the-ghz-variant-of-bells-theorem-activity-7231866450519506944-TBic?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joy-christian-oxford_comment-...)
wallfacer120 2y ago
[dead]

gus_massa 2y ago

> and therefore you conclude that the world is non-local. No, Bell's inequality has a few sensible assumtions, like locality. The conclusion is that at least one of them is wrong and real world is a sensible one :(. By the way, there is this crazy thing call QM that nobody likes but gives accurate results.

GistNoesis 2y ago
Just because there is a way, doesn't make it the only way. >but gives accurate results. Giving accurate results is missing the point. Hint: The point is understanding how nature's does it. Here is the Chesterton's fence implied by Bell's Inequality : Lemma: There exist a local classical simulator that allows to simulate a universe that behaves according to the probabilities of QM. Corollary : we can simulate "fast" a universe which behaves (in law) exactly like our universe. Nota Bene : This doesn't mean we can compute QM probabilities fast, (we can't), although one way of computing them would be to use Montecarlo estimation on various instances of universe simulations. The question is not whether to lift the fence, or how to lift the fence, the question is how are numerical biological instabilities handled.
- Joker_vD 2y ago
  > Giving accurate results is missing the point. No, that's the central point of modern (starting with Newton) physical science. In fact, I'd argue that's the main reason for the astonishing advances of the physics in mere 300 years: people stopped bothering too much about philosophical underpinning of reality and started to fucking measure the reality instead, as precisely and accurately as they could and then some. Fresnel's optics won over Newton's not because of its superior philosophical merits (it needs luminiferous aether to be a perfectly rigid incompressible solid, after all), but simply because it very accurately described light's interference, diffraction, all kinds of refraction and the accompanying polarization, and also dispersion, all in one nice, self-contained package. That's what mattered, not the ridiculousness or reasonableness of proposition that light corpuscles have poles and can experience fits of easy transmission/reflection. > Hint: The point is understanding how nature's does it. By being itself, how else? /s

eigenket 2y ago

> You usually show a pupil the problem with classical probabilities, and show that you can't violate Bell's Inequalities, then you show that Quantum Mechanics managed to replicated the observed probabilities using a non-local way, and therefore you conclude that the world is non-local. If you do this you're doing a bad job at being a teacher. The way the argument should go is you start with a list of assumptions (of which locality is one), derive Bell's inequality from them, and determine that as Bell's inequality seems to be false in real experiments at least one of your assumptions was wrong. Then you can talk about quantum mechanics and explain which of these assumption are broken in quantum mechanics. If you have time you can have fun talking about different interpretations of quantum mechanics because (e.g.) Everettian Many Worlds is completely local, but still produces predictions matching quantum mechanics (and therefore breaks Bell's inequality).

GistNoesis 2y ago
>If you do this you're doing a bad job at being a teacher. If this wasn't sufficiently clear, I am not a teacher, I am a crackpot physicist. Hint : Listing the assumptions doesn't work. This is what I call the three-card monte argument. The ball is not under one of the three goblets, the ball is in the sleeve of the magician.
- eigenket 2y ago
  > Hint : Listing the assumptions doesn't work Why not? I could see that it might not if you are not clear about your assumptions
  - GistNoesis 2y ago
    It's circular reasoning, hidden in the definition of your assumptions. By defining not clearly what a measurement is and observations are. You must let the cat step out of the box your definitions put you in. You have infinite freedom in your choices of definitions, listing assumptions is creating a false dichotomy. Especially when doing so conclude to exclude the most probable assumption : Locality. Preserve locality, and find another self consistent theory which define properly what according to it a measurement is, an not take measurement and observations as axioms.

hnax 2y ago

This 'crackpot physicist' is still alive and kicking and, indeed, as per the (analytical) induction requirement to make the case, his work deserves a careful reading to assume the geometric algebraic understanding of QM (for the 'crackpot's latest, see: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joy-christian-oxford_comment-on-the-ghz-variant-of-bells-theorem-activity-7231866450519506944-TBic?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joy-christian-oxford_comment-...)

wallfacer120 2y ago

[dead]