 Quote by mbd
The December issue of Physics Today demonstrates that there is no prevailing view on many of these issues. In particular, see the responses to Mermin's excellent commentary on conditional probability that appeared in the July issue.
In any case, it is most definitely NOT a consensus viewpoint to say that a realistic system is one in which outcomes of a measurement are observer-independent. To say so conflates the measurement problem with realism. A system can be realistic whether or not you are able to glean perfect, or no, information from it, and whether or not doing so impacts or does not impact the system.
|
Yes, it is consensus that a realistic system is one in which reality is observer independent. This was in fact the case per the original EPR paper, 1935. Please read the last two paragraphs and this is made clear.
As you are not following forum guidelines regarding the posting of personal theories, I have reported you to staff. I might have thought that a new member might tread a bit more softly in this moderated forum. For each person who posts there are at least 10 reading. Many of those will not be aware that your ideas ignore Bell. Since I follow both Zeilinger and Mermin closely and reference both often, I can tell you that your quotes are gross mischaracterization of their viewpoints.
See the link on my tag line if you would to learn more about Bell.
Similar Threads for: Entanglement and Bell's theorem. Is the non-locality real?
Physorg.com Science News Partner
