Joy Christian, Disproof of Bell's Theorem

In summary: The article is discussing Joy Christian's latest paper which purports to disprove Bell's theorem. The article does a good job of summarizing the paper and its contents. The article does not provide a verdict on whether or not the paper is correct or significant.
  • #246
Further subtle points about Fine's result http://www.jstor.org/stable/187655
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #247


Mathematech said:
Yeah I read that sentence and decided I needed another cup of coffee before attempting it again
Gisin's definition of "realism" kind of reminds me of the epigenetic modifications of the genome by environment, except for the non-locality.
 
  • #248


Actually after completing Joy Christians latest paper I'm not convinced the math is correct, its seemingly based on a Clifford Algebra model of what the tensor product Hilbert Space formalism is saying but also contains some dodgey limits. Either its just plain wrong or if fixable at most just copies what the standard formalism already tells us without adding any real explanantion - why should the stats conform to the Clifford algebra based pseudo-statistics based on a parallelized hypersphere ... if there isn't some non-local mechanism enforcing it?
 
  • #249


I haven't gone through this whole thread, so this paper by Richard Gill may have already been cited: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504

IMO, this paper is a completely convincing demonstration that Christian's claims about Bell are vacuous.

Christian has a reply paper, which IMO is as vacuous as his previous ones. Find it yourself if you care to.
 
  • #251


But it seems not everyone is convinced.
 
Last edited:
  • #252


gill1109 said:
Why should probability not ontologically exist? What kind of prejudice is that? I think quantum mechanics is telling us that it does exist, despite our intuition or instinct to the contrary. Our brains evolved and led us from success to success by hard-wiring in us a belief that nothing happens without a cause... this belief worked just fine, till we ran up against quantum mechanics.
Interesting comment since such a paper was recently published that kind of argues this:
We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of probabilities originate in quantum fluctuations in the microscopic physical world around us, often propagated to macroscopic scales. Thus we claim there is no physically verified fully classical theory of probability. We comment on the general implications of this view, and specifically question the application of classical probability theory to cosmology in cases where key questions are known to have no quantum answer.
Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0953v1.pdf
Also discussed here:
Does Probability Come from Quantum Physics?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130205151450.htm
 
  • #253


bohm2 said:
Why should probability not ontologically exist? What kind of prejudice is that? I think quantum mechanics is telling us that it does exist, despite our intuition or instinct to the contrary. Our brains evolved and led us from success to success by hard-wiring in us a belief that nothing happens without a cause... this belief worked just fine, till we ran up against quantum mechanics.

I think that there is a conflict, or at least a tension, between objective probabilities and relativity, even before you throw in quantum mechanics. Subjective probability of course is not affected by quantum mechanics or relativity, and the sort of "collapse" that happens when an observer gets new information is a process that goes on inside someone's head, not in the world. But a purely subjective notion of probability seems incomplete when talking about quantum mechanics, for two reasons: First, there's absolutely no reason to think that subjective probability should evolve via Schrodinger's equation, and second, having one person detecting a particle should have no effect on somebody else's subjective probability (until he finds out about it, anyway).

On the other hand, objective probability is hard to reconcile with relativity, unless it is of a very particular type. By "objective probability", I mean stochastic processes, in which the evolution of the state of the system is governed by a probabilistic transition matrix. However, when you consider relativity, there is no universal "time" to use for state evolution, there is only a local notion of time applicable within a small region. You could have a stochastic process based on local time, for instance, a particle's state could evolve nondeterministically as a function of the particle's proper time. However, that kind of stochastic evolution can't describe things like the probability of a particle being here or there, for the following reason:
Suppose that a particle has a 50/50 chance of being in one of two boxes, box A and box B, lightyears apart. Someone detects the particle in box A. A second later, (according to one reference frame), someone checks box B for the particle.

According to one reference frame, the particle has already been found, and so the second observer has zero chance of finding the particle. According to a second reference frame, the checking of the particle in B happens before the discovery of the particle in A. So in this frame, the particle has a nonzero chance of being found at B.​

This frame-dependence of probability causes no problems for subjective probability, but doesn't really make sense for objective probability.

This is a long-winded way of saying that in my opinion, the weirdness of the way probability works in quantum mechanics is sort of to be expected, because there is no good way for objective probability to work consistently with relativity.

On the other hand, if there secretly were a universal time, then you could have an ordinary stochastic evolution based on that universal time. I'm not sure how the Bohm theory generalizes to relativistic quantum mechanics. Does it use a preferred rest frame for the nonlocal quantum interactions?
 
  • #254
stevendaryl said:
On the other hand, if there secretly were a universal time, then you could have an ordinary stochastic evolution based on that universal time. I'm not sure how the Bohm theory generalizes to relativistic quantum mechanics. Does it use a preferred rest frame for the nonlocal quantum interactions?
Generally, Bohmian models would seem to require a preferred rest frame for non-local correlations but Demystifier (Hrvoje Nikolic) our resident Bohmian expert on this forum has published a Bohmian model compatible with relativity. He does it by treating time on an equal footing with space and his model does not involve a preferred Lorenz frame. Some of his stuff can be found here:

Slide Presentation:
Making Bohmian Mechanics compatible with Relativity and Quantum Field Theory
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/tti_talks/deBB_10/nikolic_tti2010.pdf

Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/local_papers/nikolic_2010d.pdf

Making nonlocal reality compatible with relativity
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/local_papers/nikolic_2010a.pdf

Edit: There's also another Bohm approach that can be Lorentz invariant, with no need for a preferred reference frame at the hidden level but requires retrocausality:
A version of Bohm’s model incorporating retrocausality is presented, the aim being to explain the nonlocality of Bell’s theorem while maintaining Lorentz invariance in the underlying ontology. The strengths and weaknesses of this alternative model are compared with those of the standard Bohm model.
Causally Symmetric Bohm model
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0601/0601095.pdf
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What is Joy Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem?</h2><p>Joy Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem is a scientific paper that challenges the widely accepted Bell's Theorem, which states that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local realism. Christian argues that Bell's Theorem is based on flawed assumptions and presents a new mathematical model that supports local realism.</p><h2>2. How does Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem impact the scientific community?</h2><p>Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem has sparked a lot of debate and controversy within the scientific community. Some scientists have praised his work for challenging long-held beliefs, while others have criticized his methodology and conclusions. The impact of his paper is still being discussed and evaluated.</p><h2>3. What evidence does Christian provide to support his disproof?</h2><p>Christian's disproof is based on a mathematical model that he developed, which he claims is more accurate and comprehensive than the models used in Bell's Theorem. He also presents several experiments and observations that he believes support his model and disprove Bell's Theorem.</p><h2>4. Has Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem been peer-reviewed?</h2><p>Yes, Christian's paper has been peer-reviewed and published in the journal Foundations of Physics. However, it has also received criticism from other scientists who have published their own papers refuting his claims.</p><h2>5. What are the implications of Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem?</h2><p>If Christian's disproof is accepted by the scientific community, it could have significant implications for our understanding of quantum mechanics and the nature of reality. It could also lead to further research and experimentation to validate or refute his claims.</p>

1. What is Joy Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem?

Joy Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem is a scientific paper that challenges the widely accepted Bell's Theorem, which states that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local realism. Christian argues that Bell's Theorem is based on flawed assumptions and presents a new mathematical model that supports local realism.

2. How does Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem impact the scientific community?

Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem has sparked a lot of debate and controversy within the scientific community. Some scientists have praised his work for challenging long-held beliefs, while others have criticized his methodology and conclusions. The impact of his paper is still being discussed and evaluated.

3. What evidence does Christian provide to support his disproof?

Christian's disproof is based on a mathematical model that he developed, which he claims is more accurate and comprehensive than the models used in Bell's Theorem. He also presents several experiments and observations that he believes support his model and disprove Bell's Theorem.

4. Has Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem been peer-reviewed?

Yes, Christian's paper has been peer-reviewed and published in the journal Foundations of Physics. However, it has also received criticism from other scientists who have published their own papers refuting his claims.

5. What are the implications of Christian's Disproof of Bell's Theorem?

If Christian's disproof is accepted by the scientific community, it could have significant implications for our understanding of quantum mechanics and the nature of reality. It could also lead to further research and experimentation to validate or refute his claims.

Similar threads

Replies
50
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
7
Replies
220
Views
18K
Replies
55
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
706
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
10
Replies
333
Views
11K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
64
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
70
Views
16K
Back
Top