User:Gill110951/Bell theorem opposition
![]() | This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Bell theorem opposition
There continues to be lively debate on the meaning and the correctness of Bell’s theorem. To some extent, this debate continues outside of “establishment science”; but also within established academia, there exists a vocal minority who disagree with the general consensus in the physics community that the early debates between Einstein and Bohr were concluded in Bohr’s favour. Unfortunately, the disagreements inside this minority are extremely large, too [cite Karl Hess on this].
There are two main ways to “get around” Bell’s theorem. The most radical is to suggest that there are mistakes in common proofs of the theorem, or even that the violation of Bell’s inequality in experiments actually points to failings in usually accepted mathematics or logic [e.g. Itamar Pitowski]. Less radical is to exploit some alternatives which were already explicitly discussed by Bell in his many papers over the years: “superdeterminism”, and “retrocausality”. Superdeterminism is presently (2020) being championed by Sabine Hossenfelder, Tim Palmer, and for quite a few years has been supported by Gerard ‘t Hooft. Retrocausality has champions in Leifer and Pusey, Jarek Duda, and others.
The theorem is commonly supposed to say that quantum mechanics is incompatible with locality and realism, but a third condition, sometimes denoted freedom, sometimes no-conspiracy, is often added by many writers. Superdeterminism, and retrocausality, imply that experimenters do *not* have the freedom to choose experimental parameters freely. Other scientists reject locality. Finally, there is a possibility to reject realism. According to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the branching of possibilities allegedly occurring when quantum measurements are made is an illusion. All possibilities co-exist. Another radical way to avoid realism is QBism, according to which physics merely tells a subject what the probabilities will be of future experiences. The question of whether or not there is an objective reality out there is thought to be irrelevant.
The terminology itself is also hotly debated. The word “conspiracy” is objectionable, since pejorative. Example: QBism is solipsistic, but solipsism is itself a pejorative word.
A fundamental question is what is meant by “understand”. For some, to understand just means to be able to calculate and predict. To others, it means having expressed something in terms of fundamental intuitive concepts. Neurolinguistics has the notion of “systems of core knowledge”, standing for knowledge in our brains about the world which has been built-in by evolution, and which needs to be there in order to interpret experience and acquire knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gill110951/Joy_Christian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hess_(scientist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#The_paradox (Redirect from “local realism” ! This seems to me to be the result of vandalism in the past)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Palmer_(physicist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%E2%80%98t_Hooft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foundations
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-1008-4 Sandro Donadi et al. experiment testing some non-local gravity induced collapse theories
Plan for further organisation of this page: separate:
Bell's theorem: mathematical objections
Bell's theorem: physical objections
Bell's theorem: philosophical objections
Some often publishing authors with objections: Theo Nieuwenhuizen; Marian Kupczynski; Karl Hess
[I list people who do publish in peer-reviewed journals on the foundations of quantum mechanics and who are academics. This is not to belittle the others. Their work has impact too. Published criticism of the above-mentioned authors should be cited too.]
References
[edit]- ^ Karl Hess, Hans De Raedt, Kristel Michielsen (2011). "Hidden assumptions in the derivation of the Theorem of Bell" (arXiv:1108.3583 [quant-ph] ed.). doi:10.1088/0031-8949/2012/T151/014002.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ E. T. Jaynes (1989). "Clearing up Mysteries — The Original Goal" (Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods: Cambridge, England, 1988 ed.). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands: 1–27. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7860-8_1. ISBN 978-94-015-7860-8.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help); Unknown parameter|agency=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Joy Christian (2010). "Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables" (arXiv:quant-ph/0703179 ed.).
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Joy Christian (2010). "Disproofs of Bell, GHZ, and Hardy Type Theorems and the Illusion of Entanglement" (arXiv:0904.4259 [gr-qc, physics:quant-ph] ed.).
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gill110951/Bell_theorem_opposition
External links
[edit]