The illusion of separability and the irrelevance of Bell's theorem

[ueit]

I'd like to present an argument against the idea that Bell's theorem eliminates local-realistic, hidden-variable theories as possible candidates for a better understanding of QM.

Premise 1. There is good evidence that the fundamental theory describing our universe will be a theory of fields (or some other concepts for what the fields known today will be an approximation).

Justification: Both QFT and GR are theories of this sort.

Premise 2. There is good evidence that the fundamental field/fields described by the fundamental theory will be infinitely ranged fields.

Justification: 2 of the 4 known forces are of this type (electromagnetism and gravity)

Premise 3. A system of particles interacting through an infinitely-ranged field cannot be split in independent subsystems.

Justification: The motion of each particle is determined by the resultant field of all particles, removing one or more particles from the calculation would lead to errors.

Conclusion 1: from Premises 1,2 and 3 it follows that there is good evidence that our universe cannot be separated into independent subsystems.

Premise 4: Bell's theorem stands on the assumption that the source of entangled particles and the 2 detectors are independent systems.

Justification: one cannot derive Bell's theorem if the hidden variable determines not only the particles' properties but the settings of the detectors as well.

Conclusion 2: from Conclusion 1 and Premise 4 it follows that Bell's theorem is irrelevant for our universe.

 

[eljose79]

Thank you for presenting your argument against the idea that Bell's theorem eliminates local-realistic, hidden-variable theories as possible candidates for a better understanding of QM. I would like to offer a counterargument to your points.

Firstly, while it is true that there is evidence that the fundamental theory describing our universe will be a theory of fields, it is important to note that this does not necessarily mean that all fields will be infinitely ranged. In fact, there are theories such as string theory that propose the existence of finite-range fields. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that our universe cannot be separated into independent subsystems based on the assumption of infinitely ranged fields.

Secondly, while it is true that 2 of the 4 known forces (electromagnetism and gravity) are infinitely ranged, it is important to note that the other 2 known forces (strong and weak nuclear forces) are not infinitely ranged. This shows that the range of a force is not necessarily a determining factor in whether a system can be split into independent subsystems.

Thirdly, your argument assumes that the motion of each particle is solely determined by the resultant field of all particles. However, in quantum mechanics, the behavior of particles is probabilistic and cannot be fully determined by their surrounding fields. This challenges the idea that a system of particles interacting through an infinitely ranged field cannot be split into independent subsystems.

Lastly, while it is true that Bell's theorem stands on the assumption that the source of entangled particles and the 2 detectors are independent systems, this does not make the theorem irrelevant for our universe. In fact, many experiments have been conducted that support the predictions of Bell's theorem, showing that entanglement and non-locality are fundamental aspects of our universe.

In conclusion, while your argument presents some interesting points, I believe that there are still strong reasons to consider Bell's theorem and its implications for our understanding of quantum mechanics. As scientists, it is important to continuously evaluate and refine our theories, but we must also be open to the evidence and data that support them.