- #1
RandallB
- 1,550
- 0
Einstein and a few others since the 1935 EPR paper took the position that defining in knowable terms a hidden variable would show Quantum Mechanics to be incomplete. In that sense proving Quantum Mechanics wrong as “THE” theory of physics, regardless of how accurate and useful the predictions at the atomic level might be. However for a Einstein’s unknown variable to be complete such HV needs to be clearly defined and demonstrate an ability to resolve “Weird Actions at a Distance” as nothing more than Local and Realistic results of detriment Hidden Variables.
Debating the idea of an Unknown Hidden Variable is not new philosophically or scientifically. I wish to keep this thread scientific. Therefore, for proposes of this thread, Detriment Variables, as expected by Einstein, DOES NOT require or establish “determinism” from the past or into the future. We only require that once a variable is established by some interaction on an entity (Particle or Photon), it retains pertinent detriment values as it travels until changed by some contact such as “measurement”. So, for fans of determinism please keep input on that philosophy in other threads, preferably in the Philosophy Forum. I’d like to also assume that readers here already understand the principles contained in the Bell Theorem, so for those not up to speed on EPR & Entanglement I recommend reviewing the links at: DrChinese-BellTheorum I consider DrChinese the best Science Advisor on our forum when it comes to understanding Bell Theory / QM Entanglement issues.
Many experiments produce observations (e.g. interference patterns) that imply Quantum Weirdness or Hidden Variables must be in play. But only one offers the opportunity to falsify or verify the HV idea. Bell correlation tests by applying the Bell Theorem have to date falsified the idea of an Unknown Einstein Hidden Variable. Yet Local Realists still remain; unconvinced by Bell Experiments, and experimentalist still search for ways to provide a test that will close “loopholes” and eliminate any remaining doubts about the Non-Local/Realistic nature of reality.
Science should be able to find a way to conclusively decide between “Local” vs. “Non-Local” reality. Rather than look for flaws in QM or Bell tests, I suggest we take a closer look at flaws in the Local Realist claims of errors in Bell tests matching QM predictions that cannot be matched by a Local Variable. Attached is a chart of correlation plots showing QM & LR (Local Realist) predictions. The problem we have is there are TWO predictions made by LR’s, one with a 25% min. and a 75% max. The other is a straight line from 0% to 100% that comes close possibly within “Measurement Loophole Errors” for experimental measurements that match the QM prediction.
There can never be a common understanding between LR’s and non-local theories if something a simple as clearly defining the correct expectation of a Local Realist. Therefore this must be our first step, defining clearly what the LR correlation predictions should be based on known classical science. Building such a clear definition that can be confirmed experimentally is worth separating it into the nest post for this thread.
©2007 Randall B
Debating the idea of an Unknown Hidden Variable is not new philosophically or scientifically. I wish to keep this thread scientific. Therefore, for proposes of this thread, Detriment Variables, as expected by Einstein, DOES NOT require or establish “determinism” from the past or into the future. We only require that once a variable is established by some interaction on an entity (Particle or Photon), it retains pertinent detriment values as it travels until changed by some contact such as “measurement”. So, for fans of determinism please keep input on that philosophy in other threads, preferably in the Philosophy Forum. I’d like to also assume that readers here already understand the principles contained in the Bell Theorem, so for those not up to speed on EPR & Entanglement I recommend reviewing the links at: DrChinese-BellTheorum I consider DrChinese the best Science Advisor on our forum when it comes to understanding Bell Theory / QM Entanglement issues.
Many experiments produce observations (e.g. interference patterns) that imply Quantum Weirdness or Hidden Variables must be in play. But only one offers the opportunity to falsify or verify the HV idea. Bell correlation tests by applying the Bell Theorem have to date falsified the idea of an Unknown Einstein Hidden Variable. Yet Local Realists still remain; unconvinced by Bell Experiments, and experimentalist still search for ways to provide a test that will close “loopholes” and eliminate any remaining doubts about the Non-Local/Realistic nature of reality.
Science should be able to find a way to conclusively decide between “Local” vs. “Non-Local” reality. Rather than look for flaws in QM or Bell tests, I suggest we take a closer look at flaws in the Local Realist claims of errors in Bell tests matching QM predictions that cannot be matched by a Local Variable. Attached is a chart of correlation plots showing QM & LR (Local Realist) predictions. The problem we have is there are TWO predictions made by LR’s, one with a 25% min. and a 75% max. The other is a straight line from 0% to 100% that comes close possibly within “Measurement Loophole Errors” for experimental measurements that match the QM prediction.
There can never be a common understanding between LR’s and non-local theories if something a simple as clearly defining the correct expectation of a Local Realist. Therefore this must be our first step, defining clearly what the LR correlation predictions should be based on known classical science. Building such a clear definition that can be confirmed experimentally is worth separating it into the nest post for this thread.
©2007 Randall B