View Single Post
harrylin
#14
Feb28-12, 02:05 AM
P: 3,184
Quote Quote by harrylin View Post
Thank you! Indeed I had not seen that one... BTW I was also very much a spectator of another current thread in which I saw the suggestion to start this topic. Now I'll first check out the old thread.
Ok, I'm afraid that I will need some time to work through that old thread; and I'm very busy this week.

Still, I started reading it and I notice some disagreement about what Bell claimed to prove. There is no use getting into arguments about the meaning of "local realism" and philosophy. What the "local realist" Einstein insisted on, and what Bell claimed to be incompatible with QM, was "no spooky action at a distance". Or, as Bell put it in his first paper:
that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past.
Those who deviate from that issue are shooting at straw men.

Bell puts it this way in his Bertlmann's socks paper:
What is held sacred is the principle of "local causality" - or "no action at a distance". [...] What [Einstein] could not accept was that an intervention at one place could influence, immediately, affairs at the other.
The focus of this discussion is Bell's attempt to prove that Einstein's "no action at a distance" principle is incompatible with QM, in the light of Jayne's first criticism.