Talk:Bell's theorem

Local pilot-wave theory

The article implies exclusion of pilot-wave theory with local hidden variables, but I am not sure that is the latest thinking, at least among fluid dynamics experimenters like MIT's John Bush.

MIT's John Bush conducted experiments with oil droplets floating on fluids, generating pilot-wave and quantum behavior analogs consistent with Bell's theorem, not before thought possible in classical local systems(1). Interestingly John Bell was himself a proponent of pilot-wave theory(2).

• (1) The New Quantum-Reality Quanta Magazine 06.30.2014 by Natalie Wolchover, fluid dynamicists convinced there is a classical, fluid explanation of quantum mechanics [1].
• (2) Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy Quantum Physics 09.12.2019 by Larry Hardesty MIT, John Bell proponent of pilot-wave theory [2]

James Tankersley Jr (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Simple pictorial proof of Bell theorem

I believe this article would benefit from a simple proof of Bell theorem, preferably a pictorial one. One can be found here: http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/paper.pdf Yesterday I have created even a simpler one - just using Born rule (for https://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.2724v2.pdf ) - if you think it is appropriate, you can take it to the article (or suggest modifications I can make).

Simple proof of Bell theorem. Top: assuming any probability distribution among 8 possibilities for values of 3 binary variables ABC, we always get the above inequality. Bottom: example of its violation using quantum Born rule: probability is normalized square of amplitude.

Jarek Duda (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

New explanation of Bell's theorem

New explanation of Bell's theorem added recently by Joseph Boone is nice, but I have a terminological objection. The mathematical proposition as formulated is but a special case of Boole–Fréchet inequalities (as noted in the article), well-known long ago before Bell, rather trivial, and unrelated to quanta. I feel it rather humiliating for Bell, to say that this trivial remark IS his great achievement. If THIS is called Bell theorem, then, what is the name for "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics"? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Bell's corollary? YohanN7 (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I also struggle with this terminology, and decided Bell's theorem is "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce ...", and Bell's inequality is what everyone seems to understand. And, I refer to a "Bell's theorem experiment" as any effort to investigate this spookiness (regardless of whether the experimentalists even know that a local hidden variable is). I for one, would be hard pressed to define "local hidden variable", but have no great desire to do so. This is all just my opinion--I am no expert on this junction between physics and philosophy.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)