Talk:Bell's theorem: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
XOR'easter (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== |
== EPR on lead == |
||
I think {{u|Nuretok}} has a point in the edit that {{u|XOR'easter}} reverted. The sentence is correct, but not helpful. But the more fundamental problem is that the lead is going into detail about a result that inspired Bell. Even if the detail was about Bell's theorem itself it wouldn't belong in the lead. Details about EPR are right out. To compound the issue the lead is already extremely long. Therefore I removed all mentions to EPR from there. It's already discussed in the History section, and that's where it belongs. |
|||
I have, like, no time or energy to put into this article now, but I did want to say that I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bell%27s_theorem&diff=prev&oldid=1210677861 the text removed here] is a bad addition. Squeezing every possible qualification into the paragraph that is supposed to be the most broadly comprehensible is a bad idea. The intro is already overlong; if anything, it needs to be condensed (and if we are to add any more to it, it needs to be condensed ''significantly'' first). Moreover, per [[MOS:LEDE|house style]], the intro is supposed to provide a capsule summary of the main article that follows, and putting emphasis upon a point that the main article doesn't is giving that point [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. (The article itself doesn't even say "noncontextual" until it gets into [[Gleason's theorem]].) No doubt the page needs improvements, but I don't think this is one of them. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 20:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
This also opens space for mentioning the variations of Bell's theorem that {{u|Ianjauslin}} wanted to include last year. I think that's much more relevant than historical background. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 07:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::This isn't an issue of mathematics, it's one of language and technical writing. No one disagrees as to what the theorem is or what it fundamentally requires, but we have to explain it in the format of an encyclopedia article. It's fine to have an incomplete description after the end of the first paragraph. |
|||
::{{midsize|(This reminds me tangentially of the saga where Wikipedians came to heartache and an ArbCom decision over the ordering and treatment of explanations in the [[Monty Hall problem]] article.)}} [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: The term "noncontextual" is confusing, and does not add anything. [[User:Schlafly|Roger]] ([[User talk:Schlafly|talk]]) 20:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd been wanting to shorten the lede for a while now, so that seems like a good move. One could maybe make a case that EPR ought to be ''mentioned'' up top, but we definitely had too much on it, and I am content with leaving it out as is done presently. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Mermin-Peres magic squares. == |
|||
::While I agree that the intro was too long and we don't need all the history jammed in there, EPR->Bell's theorem is one of the most significant historical connections in QM. Per our general guidelines to summarize in the intro, a sentence related to EPR is due. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't object to ''mention'' it, as opposed to ''explain'' it, but I'm not going to do it myself. |
|||
::Encouraged by your comments I went a bit further in shortening the lead, eliminating what I think was just repetition. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 17:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== “Not in doubt” == |
|||
The Mermin-Peres magic square analysis seems missing here. As a simplified "game" it might make some of this more accessible. |
|||
The intro states: |
|||
Mermin and Peres both worked on simplified Bell models as summarized in: |
|||
* Aravind, Padmanabhan K. "Quantum mysteries revisited again." American Journal of Physics 72.10 (2004): 1303-1307. |
|||
These models take the form of a "game" described in the common sense of a game but treated as in game theory. The wikipedia treatment of the Mermin-Peres magic square is buried inside [[Quantum pseudo-telepathy]]. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Block quote|While the significance of Bell's theorem is not in doubt,}} |
|||
:I disagree. The rules of the game are more complicated, the proof of the local bound is more complicated, and the quantum strategy is much more complicated. The only good thing about the magic square is that the quantum probability of victory is 1. Which is rather nice but conceptually irrelevant for Bell's theorem, and in any case already covered by the GHZ game here. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 19:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
But in fact it is: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/phys-2017-0088/html |
|||
== The Copenhagen Interpretation == |
|||
{{Block quote|The simulation results are parallel to those obtained in actual optical realizations of the basic Bell-test. The fact that this manifestly classical arrangement leads to a violation of a Bell Inequality must mean either that classical optics also is irreal or nonlocal; or that the significance of Bell’s analysis is misinterpreted, even invalid. |
|||
The section of the current article called "The Copenhagen Interpretation" seems to be [[WP:SYNTH]] to me. |
|||
[…] |
|||
For example the first part of the section covers Bohr's reply to EPR. (I'm not sure why that is even in here.) This is "Bohr's interpretation". The paragraph starts with refs to papers that are not about Bells theorem at all. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
When this consideration for the most elementary optical version of experimental tests of Bell’s analysis is correctly taken into account, the derivation of a Bell Inequality does not go through. Thus, conclusions drawn from the empirical violation of a Bell Inequality are rendered invalid.}} |
|||
:I check some more refs then deleted the first paragraph, off topic and not useful elsewhere. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Saying something about Bohr's reply to EPR makes sense here, in principle, as Bell '64 built on top of EPR. I don't see how the removed material qualifies as [[WP:SYNTH]], because it didn't advance a ''new conclusion'' (e.g., "Based on what Bohr wrote in 1935, he would have responded thusly to Bell in 1964..."). Maybe it was unsuitable for other reasons (e.g., too long), but I don't think [[WP:SYNTH]] was a problem there. And the opening of the deleted paragraph performed the important role of saying what the "Copenhagen interpretation" is, or rather, what the Copenhagen interpretation''s'' are. I don't know if just providing a wiki-link is enough, but I've added one. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 17:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::What I object to is the idea that Bohr's view on EPR becomes "Copenhagen" view on Bell. There is no "Copenhagen" view on Bell because there is no "Copenhagen". Half the paragraph was devoted to shoring up a definition of "Copenhagen" because it is not a thing. |
|||
::There is a "standard" "conventional" or "orthodox" interpretation which is also not crisply defined but all we need are refs about Bell theorem from standard text books, not a big intro. |
|||
::If we do that, which I think is wikipedia, then what happens to Bohr on EPR? Without the implicit claim that Bohr speaks on behalf of "Copenhagen" when he speaks about EPR, we need a ref to include Bohr on EPR in an article on Bell. Otherwise it is off topic. |
|||
::We could make Bohr/EPR/Bell a topic as there are references that do exactly that, eg: |
|||
::* Dickson, Michael. "Bohr on bell: A proposed reading of bohr and its implications for bell’s theorem." Non-locality and Modality. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2002. 19-35. |
|||
::But Bohr/ERP can be discussed directly in the History without the "Copenhagen" baggage. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't think a paragraph that prominently included the text {{tq|There is no definitive historical statement of what is ''the'' Copenhagen interpretation. In particular, there were fundamental disagreements between the views of Bohr and Heisenberg.}} was "shoring up a definition" for the Copenhagen interpretation. Rather the opposite: it went out of its way to say that there ''is'' no unique definition of a single Copenhagen interpretation, only a collection of features that more-or-less distinguish this collection of separate ideas from other collections. Cutting that makes the subsection slightly worse, I think. {{pb}} Bohr's reply to EPR makes sense as background to explain what "rejecting counterfactual definiteness" means. I think that qualifies it for being on-topic, but reading the subsection in its shorter form, I think we might be OK without it. {{pb}} The question of how Bohr might have reacted to Bell's theorem is a matter of speculation (Dickson uses lots of language like "Bohr would presumably argue") and would of course have to be labeled as such. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ok, my main objection here is to emphasize "Copenhagen" and exclude "orthodox" as a result. I get the sense that throughout wikipedia "Copenhagen" is a code-word for "old, incorrect". The term is not often used in textbooks or even in QM articles. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 18:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::And when the textbooks do use it, they just copy the same lazy explanation that the previous textbooks copied from the textbooks before that, ignoring everything that historians of science have been saying since the 1970s. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 18:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Does this perhaps deserve a mention somewhere? [[User:Spidermario|Spidermario]] ([[User talk:Spidermario|talk]]) 21:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Alternative organization for the Interpretations section == |
|||
:Not really, no. There's a [[WP:FRINGE|fringe cottage industry]] of Bell denialists who churn out screeds that (a) insist all other physicists are wrong, (b) disagree with each other about why, and (c) vanish without trace. (Or they get cited once in someplace like an [[MDPI]] journal, which amounts to the same thing.) People who work in the field for any substantial length of time adopt the attitude of patent clerks receiving yet another application for a perpetual-motion machine. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 22:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Since I know that the many indistinguishable interpretations of QM have an equal number of ardent followers I'll suggest this reorg before editing. |
|||
:The reference you linked, |
|||
:* Kracklauer, A. F.. "Bell’s “Theorem”: loopholes vs. conceptual flaws" Open Physics, vol. 15, no. 1, 2017, pp. 754-761. https://doi.org/10.1515/phys-2017-0088 |
|||
:has [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=521152571038344403&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5 one citation], a sign that mainstream physicists don't believe the work with worth mentioning. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 23:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::And that citation is in ''[[Entropy (journal)|Entropy]],'' which provides basically no meaningful peer review. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 00:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== A possible mistake? == |
|||
I think the more effective categories for interpretations is "Hidden variables" vs "No variables". This grouping would make the implications of Bell's theorem for interpretations clearer. See for examples |
|||
* Werner, Reinhard F. "What Maudlin replied to." arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.2120 (2014). |
|||
* Żukowski, Marek. "Bell’s theorem tells us not what quantum mechanics is, but what quantum mechanics is not." Quantum [Un] Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell's Theorem (2017): 175-185. |
|||
Any "classical" interpretation must be non-local because of Bell; any non-classical interpretation is unaffected. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Written by the author - A<sub>0</sub> A<sub>1</sub> + A<sub>0</sub>A<sub>3</sub> + A<sub>2</sub>A<sub>1</sub> - A<sub>2</sub>A<sub>3</sub> . Obviously, the following equality is true: (A<sub>0</sub> + A<sub>2</sub>)A<sub>1</sub> + (A<sub>0</sub> - A<sub>2</sub>)A<sub>3</sub> etc. But the result of ONE MEASUREMENT can be ONLY 2 parameters. For example, A<sub>0</sub> and A<sub>3</sub> (if they have "heads" by flipping a coin for this ONE measurement). A<sub>2</sub> and A<sub>1</sub> are not determinated in this measure and are INDETERMINATE. Then what is it (A<sub>0</sub> + A<sub>2</sub>) and (A<sub>0</sub> - A<sub>2</sub>) - is unclear... Further construction is collapsing. Apparently, it would immediately move on to the average values and write a chain of equalities for them? [[Special:Contributions/144.206.128.253|144.206.128.253]] ([[User talk:144.206.128.253|talk]]) 18:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not sure what this reorganization would achieve. Surely organizing a section called "Interpretations" by the name of the interpretation makes sense enough? [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 18:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, but I don't think that is what we have. Under "Copenhagen" we have most of the modern interpretations. We have "Non-local hidden variables". And we have MWI and Superdeterminism. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The "Copenhagen" section has one line about modern interpretations that are close to the Copenhagen collection, which sounds reasonable. Really, the odd one out is "Superdeterminism", which isn't really an interpretation but a feature that (a small number of people) have advocated for an interpretation to include. How about this: Move the line about the transactional interpretation into the next subsection, change "Superdeterminism" to "Proposals about retrocausality and superdeterminism", and change "Non-local hidden variables" to "Bohmian mechanics"? There have been other proposals to bring retrocausality into the story somehow, e.g., by [https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.021002 Wharton and Argaman]. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, good. But then where do these things go? |
|||
::::* Fuchs, Christopher A., and Asher Peres. "Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’." Physics today 53.3 (2000): 70-71. "...the violation of Bell’s inequality by quantum theory is not a proof of its nonlocality. Quantum theory is essentially local. Bell’s discovery was that any ''realistic ''theory that could mimic quantum mechanics would necessarily be nonlocal." |
|||
::::* Bub, Jeffrey. "Why the quantum?." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35.2 (2004): 241-266. "The separability and locality conditions, formulated as constraints on probabilities, are equivalent to the assumption that correlations can be reduced to a common cause, and Bell’s derivation of an inequality (violated by certain quantum correlations) from these conditions is an elegant demonstration of a surprising implication of Einstein’s insight: the impossibility of embedding the quantum correlations in a common cause theory." |
|||
::::These seem like interpretation, but to classify them as "Copenhagen" seems inconsistent with any textbook or literature outside of the narrow historical discussions on "Copenhagen". [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 22:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Bub, along with [https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510095 Pitowsky], [https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05255 Brukner], and [https://www.nature.com/articles/438743a Zeilinger] can be sorted into the post- or neo-Copenhagen informational interpretations. I'm not sure it's a good idea to cite the Fuchs–Peres paper; that was a slog of a compromise in order to produce something with which neither author disagreed (there's a whole chapter in Fuchs' ''Coming of Age with Quantum Information'' about the writing process!), and Fuchs later decided that a more radical position was necessary, so it's not really an essay that anyone stood by. Citing Peres' textbook or any of his solo-author papers would be a better way to represent his position. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 02:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::In [[Interpretations of quantum mechanics]] there is a section "Quantum information theories" and it is backed by the (famous?) poll as a category separate from Copenhagen. I suggest a section with a name including "quantum information". |
|||
::::::Peres' book has quite a lot about Bell, but that makes it difficult to boil down to a sentence. |
|||
::::::This article definitely needs some content about Zeilinger's work. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 02:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The [https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069 write-up of that poll] describes "information-based interpretations" as among the "intellectual offsprings" of Copenhagen. Maybe we should collect them together in a subsection called, e.g., "Copenhagen and neo-Copenhagen"? I don't have strong feelings here (though I do tend to find short subsections kind of choppy, as a matter of personal taste). [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 03:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::If we go strictly by the ref, we would have "information-based interpretations" and include the other (among the offspring) Copenhagen-like interpretations under their own names. To me, that matches the modern scene. While we can't find "Copenhagen" to ask how Bell works, refs on information-based interpretations will claim eg complementarity. |
|||
::::::::Also I think coining "neo-Copenhagen" as "information-based interpretations" would conflict with |
|||
::::::::* De Muynck, Willem M. "Towards a neo-Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics." Foundations of Physics 34 (2004): 717-770. |
|||
::::::::[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 03:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Using ''neo-Copenhagen'' to refer to that general territory is not my coinage; see, e.g., [https://cyberdandy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Harald-A-Wiltsche-and-Philipp-Berghofer-Phenomenological-Approaches-to-Physics.pdf#page=240][https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05314][https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3663268][https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06488]. But I don't think the terminology of classification is very standardized at all here. Cf. Cabello [https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.04711]. Perhaps a subsection heading like "Copenhagen-type and information-based" would be viable. {{pb}} We obviously don't have a response from Bohr to Bell's theorem. We do, however, have authors like Peierls and Omnès, who tried to present what they saw as Copenhagen, and who had things to say about Bell's work. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 12:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Wow thanks for the refs! |
|||
::::::::::I agree that we cannot plan to "get it right", just try to make some improvement. Cabello's 2x2 organization is worth considering for our interpretations article. In the context of this page his participatory realism (Type II) category supports a "Copenhagen-type and information-based" section. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Just to wrap up, I think we agree: |
|||
::::::::::* section name changes to "Copenhagen-type and information-based" |
|||
::::::::::* Add a few sentences about information based, eg Zeilinger. |
|||
::::::::::[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:In the text, uppercase letters refer to measurement results, while lowercase letters stand for the ''hidden properties.'' By assumption, the hidden properties exist whether or not they are measured. So, we can manipulate the lowercase variables by the regular rules of algebra however we like, without worrying about them being "indeterminate". The whole point is to deduce the consequences of that assumption and then show that those consequences conflict with the predictions of quantum mechanics. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 19:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== violation of a Bell inequality cannot be interpreted as a proof of non-locality. == |
|||
::Yes... Clearly. |
|||
:: Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/144.206.128.253|144.206.128.253]] ([[User talk:144.206.128.253|talk]]) 13:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Recent review == |
|||
The article cites: |
|||
* {{Cite book|first1=Harvey R. |last1=Brown |author-link1=Harvey R. Brown |first2 = Christopher G. |last2=Timpson|chapter=Bell on Bell's Theorem: The Changing Face of Nonlocality|title=Quantum Nonlocality and Reality: 50 years of Bell's theorem |editor-first1=Mary |editor-last1=Bell |editor-first2=Shan |editor-last2=Gao |publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2016|pages = 91–123|arxiv=1501.03521|doi=10.1017/CBO9781316219393.008|isbn = 9781316219393|s2cid = 118686956}} |
|||
when it says: |
|||
* "Therefore, the violation of a Bell inequality cannot be interpreted as a proof of non-locality." |
|||
I was surprised that this review was not cited. |
|||
The ref is a cited but unpublished arxiv article. But it does not support the current content and the current content does not make sense anyway. The question we should address is "how does Bell theorem impact MWI?" |
|||
* Wharton, K. B., & Argaman, N. (2020). Colloquium: Bell’s theorem and locally mediated reformulations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(2), 021002. |
|||
Among many topics it mentions Everett's model, the subject of recent edits. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Article is self contradictory re locality == |
|||
I added a quote to the ref to support a change to the sentence. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Intro says experimental results are incompatible with local hidden variable theories, but Manyworlds section says Bell's doesn't apply and it is a dynamically local theory. This is clearly inconsistent with the intro. Suggest intro be changed to "*most* local hidden variable theories" [[User:Joncolvin|Joncolvin]] ([[User talk:Joncolvin|talk]]) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Well I am trying to make sense of this section but it is tough sledding. The first paragraph ends with: |
|||
:* "Therefore, a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as a demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes." |
|||
:No. Hidden worlds don't seem to count as "hidden variables". So all local hidden variables are incompatible. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:citing |
|||
:The MWI (or rather, all the various versions of it proposed over the years) is not a hidden-variable model. In a hidden-variable model, either a wavefunction is a probability distribution over the true physical states, or the hidden variables exist in addition to the wavefunction. In MWI, the wavefunction ''is'' physical reality. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 22:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:* {{cite journal |first1=David |last1=Deutsch |author-link1=David Deutsch |first2=Patrick |last2=Hayden |author-link2=Patrick Hayden (scientist) |title=Information flow in entangled quantum systems |journal=[[Proceedings of the Royal Society A]] |date=2000 |volume=456 |issue=1999 |pages=1759–1774 |doi=10.1098/rspa.2000.0585|arxiv=quant-ph/9906007|bibcode=2000RSPSA.456.1759D |s2cid=13998168 }} |
|||
:The paper does not claim that Bell tests demonstrate multiple outcomes as implied. Obviously that would be news. In fact the section of the cited article is called "Irrelevance of Bell’s theorem". [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I changed both paragraphs to match what I read in the refs. In both cases I removed concluding sentences that implied consequences beyond what the refs say. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::If you can't understand the paper then don't vandalize Wikipedia. I understood the paper and I wrote that part. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 21:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I understood the papers. I do not agree with the summary you wrote. |
|||
:::Two specific claims were made as I described above. Neither paper justifies those claims. |
|||
:::I'll go over the discussion I already made above, I guess in more detail. |
|||
:::* "Therefore, the violation of a Bell inequality cannot be interpreted as a proof of non-locality." |
|||
:::What is the point of this claim here? It has nothing to do with MWI. It is an assertion of a well-known issue with Bell's proof, or any proof for that matter: if your application does not include the preconditions for the proof, the results need not apply. MWI does not satisfy the separability or uniqueness of outcomes required by Bell. The point of the Brown-Timpson paper is that even MWI does not satisfy the preconditions for Bell, MWI still has something interesting to say about Bell. That is what our article should get across. |
|||
:::* "Therefore, a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as a demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes." |
|||
:::This statement is either obvious -- you can't have correlation without multiple possible outcomes -- or an extrapolation -- no one believes that Bell correlations prove MWI. So I assume that you meant something else, but what I don't know. I did not see anything like this in the ref, but maybe you did. |
|||
:::@[[User:Tercer|Tercer]] I am asking you to respond to my comments above. I hope you will go back and read my version. I think it fairly represents Bell/MWI and the refs. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 22:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I favor deleting the whole section as confusing and incorrect. Bell's theorem does not even apply to the MWI. [[User:Schlafly|Roger]] ([[User talk:Schlafly|talk]]) 02:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think we could have a useful section that explains ''why'' Bell's theorem does not apply to MWI and ''how'' MWI explains the observed correlations. That was the intent of my now-reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bell%27s_theorem&oldid=1221904167#Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics revision]. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 02:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: It just takes a sentence. Bell assumes that experiments have unique outcomes. MWI does not. There is no way to reconcile MWI with Bell's work. [[User:Schlafly|Roger]] ([[User talk:Schlafly|talk]]) 03:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::You were the one who said you didn't understand Deutsch's paper. As is clearly the case. Editing Wikipedia is not about copy-pasting sentences from the references, it's about understanding and summarizing them. The "irrelevance" of Bell's theorem is as an argument against the locality of the theory they are describing, which is a separable version of Many-Worlds. Section 7 proves that if you add the single-outcome assumption to Many-Worlds you get Bell's theorem. Try to read and understand it, it's less than three pages. Its end is rather explicit: {{tq|It is hardly surprising that assigning a single-valued (albeit stochastic) variable to a physical quantity whose true descriptor is a matrix, soon leads to inconsistency}}. |
|||
::::As for the Brown-Timpson paper, they are quite explicit that they are demonstrating how a dynamically local theory can violate Bell inequalities. I find incomprehensible how you could claim that this has nothing to do with MWI, or that it doesn't belong in an article about Bell's theorem. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 09:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{talk quote|You were the one who said you didn't understand Deutsch's paper. As is clearly the case.}} |
|||
:::::At no point did they say this. However, your tone so far has been unacceptable. It's also a bit puzzling to accuse someone of not understanding what they are reading or its context, and then call their actions [[WP:VANDALISM|vandalism, when it was simply not the case]]. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 09:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 22:15, 31 October 2024
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Index
|
||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
EPR on lead
[edit]I think Nuretok has a point in the edit that XOR'easter reverted. The sentence is correct, but not helpful. But the more fundamental problem is that the lead is going into detail about a result that inspired Bell. Even if the detail was about Bell's theorem itself it wouldn't belong in the lead. Details about EPR are right out. To compound the issue the lead is already extremely long. Therefore I removed all mentions to EPR from there. It's already discussed in the History section, and that's where it belongs.
This also opens space for mentioning the variations of Bell's theorem that Ianjauslin wanted to include last year. I think that's much more relevant than historical background. Tercer (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd been wanting to shorten the lede for a while now, so that seems like a good move. One could maybe make a case that EPR ought to be mentioned up top, but we definitely had too much on it, and I am content with leaving it out as is done presently. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree that the intro was too long and we don't need all the history jammed in there, EPR->Bell's theorem is one of the most significant historical connections in QM. Per our general guidelines to summarize in the intro, a sentence related to EPR is due. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't object to mention it, as opposed to explain it, but I'm not going to do it myself.
- Encouraged by your comments I went a bit further in shortening the lead, eliminating what I think was just repetition. Tercer (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
“Not in doubt”
[edit]The intro states:
While the significance of Bell's theorem is not in doubt,
But in fact it is: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/phys-2017-0088/html
The simulation results are parallel to those obtained in actual optical realizations of the basic Bell-test. The fact that this manifestly classical arrangement leads to a violation of a Bell Inequality must mean either that classical optics also is irreal or nonlocal; or that the significance of Bell’s analysis is misinterpreted, even invalid.
[…]
When this consideration for the most elementary optical version of experimental tests of Bell’s analysis is correctly taken into account, the derivation of a Bell Inequality does not go through. Thus, conclusions drawn from the empirical violation of a Bell Inequality are rendered invalid.
Does this perhaps deserve a mention somewhere? Spidermario (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not really, no. There's a fringe cottage industry of Bell denialists who churn out screeds that (a) insist all other physicists are wrong, (b) disagree with each other about why, and (c) vanish without trace. (Or they get cited once in someplace like an MDPI journal, which amounts to the same thing.) People who work in the field for any substantial length of time adopt the attitude of patent clerks receiving yet another application for a perpetual-motion machine. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- The reference you linked,
- Kracklauer, A. F.. "Bell’s “Theorem”: loopholes vs. conceptual flaws" Open Physics, vol. 15, no. 1, 2017, pp. 754-761. https://doi.org/10.1515/phys-2017-0088
- has one citation, a sign that mainstream physicists don't believe the work with worth mentioning. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- And that citation is in Entropy, which provides basically no meaningful peer review. XOR'easter (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
A possible mistake?
[edit]Written by the author - A0 A1 + A0A3 + A2A1 - A2A3 . Obviously, the following equality is true: (A0 + A2)A1 + (A0 - A2)A3 etc. But the result of ONE MEASUREMENT can be ONLY 2 parameters. For example, A0 and A3 (if they have "heads" by flipping a coin for this ONE measurement). A2 and A1 are not determinated in this measure and are INDETERMINATE. Then what is it (A0 + A2) and (A0 - A2) - is unclear... Further construction is collapsing. Apparently, it would immediately move on to the average values and write a chain of equalities for them? 144.206.128.253 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- In the text, uppercase letters refer to measurement results, while lowercase letters stand for the hidden properties. By assumption, the hidden properties exist whether or not they are measured. So, we can manipulate the lowercase variables by the regular rules of algebra however we like, without worrying about them being "indeterminate". The whole point is to deduce the consequences of that assumption and then show that those consequences conflict with the predictions of quantum mechanics. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes... Clearly.
- Thanks. 144.206.128.253 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Recent review
[edit]I was surprised that this review was not cited.
- Wharton, K. B., & Argaman, N. (2020). Colloquium: Bell’s theorem and locally mediated reformulations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(2), 021002.
Among many topics it mentions Everett's model, the subject of recent edits. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Article is self contradictory re locality
[edit]Intro says experimental results are incompatible with local hidden variable theories, but Manyworlds section says Bell's doesn't apply and it is a dynamically local theory. This is clearly inconsistent with the intro. Suggest intro be changed to "*most* local hidden variable theories" Joncolvin (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. Hidden worlds don't seem to count as "hidden variables". So all local hidden variables are incompatible. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- The MWI (or rather, all the various versions of it proposed over the years) is not a hidden-variable model. In a hidden-variable model, either a wavefunction is a probability distribution over the true physical states, or the hidden variables exist in addition to the wavefunction. In MWI, the wavefunction is physical reality. XOR'easter (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)