by gill1109 » Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:38 am
Of course, the "theorem" does not need many proofs. One simple proof is quite enough. Calling the result a "theorem" is a bit of a joke. Feynman thought that all proofs are superfluous since "we" (people who study quantum mechanics) already knew that it must be true. "We" already know that local realism is wrong. We don't need a formal mathematical theorem to convince us of this.
But as Feynman also said, each different proof supplies a different, neat little example, and each different example corresponds to a different experiment which you could try to do. The experiments have all been done and they all confirm QM and contradict LR.
Some past experiments had loopholes, ie, allowed for alternative, if physically unappealing, explanations within local realism. Fortunately, since 2015 we have loophole-free experiments. No new *experimental* loopholes have been identified. Experimental loopholes means: loopholes which could in principle have been avoided with better detectors, better spatial-temporal parameters, etc etc. There only remain metaphysical loopholes such as superdeterminism and retrocausality. Such explanations are always possible. If the history of the universe unrolls according to deterministic laws, the experimenter's choices were already pre-determined in the deep past, the detectors can therefore already both "know" what is coming their way and what the setting will be on the other side of the experiment. Hence any correlations whatever are possible. Nature, for some reason which is perhaps hard to understand, forces the experimenter to see what quantum mechanics predicts.
If you find that an attractive explanation then go ahead, try to sell it to your fellow physicists. Some famous people seem to have staked their reputations on that way forward. They are not gaining much traction. What's the point? We have QM anyway, and we know how to use it.
Of course, there will always be obstinate people who misunderstand Bell's arguments and cling to local realism. One of the last such people is Marian Kupcsynski, who is giving a talk in Jarek Duda's Zoom seminar from Krakow next Thursday at 5 pm Warsaw time,
https://researchseminars.org/seminar/QMFNoT. Marian, who is a guy, do not be misled by his first name, has many publications on his ideas, the latest is
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/9/1104 in a special issue of
Entropy.
Of course, the "theorem" does not need many proofs. One simple proof is quite enough. Calling the result a "theorem" is a bit of a joke. Feynman thought that all proofs are superfluous since "we" (people who study quantum mechanics) already knew that it must be true. "We" already know that local realism is wrong. We don't need a formal mathematical theorem to convince us of this.
But as Feynman also said, each different proof supplies a different, neat little example, and each different example corresponds to a different experiment which you could try to do. The experiments have all been done and they all confirm QM and contradict LR.
Some past experiments had loopholes, ie, allowed for alternative, if physically unappealing, explanations within local realism. Fortunately, since 2015 we have loophole-free experiments. No new *experimental* loopholes have been identified. Experimental loopholes means: loopholes which could in principle have been avoided with better detectors, better spatial-temporal parameters, etc etc. There only remain metaphysical loopholes such as superdeterminism and retrocausality. Such explanations are always possible. If the history of the universe unrolls according to deterministic laws, the experimenter's choices were already pre-determined in the deep past, the detectors can therefore already both "know" what is coming their way and what the setting will be on the other side of the experiment. Hence any correlations whatever are possible. Nature, for some reason which is perhaps hard to understand, forces the experimenter to see what quantum mechanics predicts.
If you find that an attractive explanation then go ahead, try to sell it to your fellow physicists. Some famous people seem to have staked their reputations on that way forward. They are not gaining much traction. What's the point? We have QM anyway, and we know how to use it.
Of course, there will always be obstinate people who misunderstand Bell's arguments and cling to local realism. One of the last such people is Marian Kupcsynski, who is giving a talk in Jarek Duda's Zoom seminar from Krakow next Thursday at 5 pm Warsaw time, [url]https://researchseminars.org/seminar/QMFNoT[/url]. Marian, who is a guy, do not be misled by his first name, has many publications on his ideas, the latest is [url]https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/9/1104[/url] in a special issue of [i]Entropy[/i].
