Recent content by facenian

I think you are both, George and Infrared, right. Thank you very much guys.

Hi, I found this problem in Munkres' topology book, and it seems to be contradictory: Let X be a metric space. (a) Suppose that for some ϵ>0, every ϵ-Ball in X has compact closure. Show that X is complete. (b) Suppose that for each x\in X there is an \epsilon>0 such as the ball B(x,\epsilon) has...

They are precise because the definition is cast unambiguously in mathematical form. They are theory-independent regarding QM and local hidden variables because they are applicable to both theories independently. The fact that to obtain QM we have to put \lambda=|\psi\rangle should not be a...

It is not confusing as a well-defined concept, it is metaphysical and produces confusion. An example of this confusion is the belief that the Bell inequality requires such a hypothesis for its derivation. Another confusion is that determinism implies it. Determinism only means you can predict a...

Of course, I take the state to be the only hidden variable. That means you do not introduce anything foreign into the theory and you can apply the LC concept to the theory without changing or perturbing it. There are no particles carrying anything or state assigned to anything. There are only...

Please read from the initial paragraph above eq (7) "The fact of matter..." There are no "hidden variables" when you take lambda to be the singlet state. It is just ordinary QM. (Try to read it objectively without prejudices)

Equations (7) and (8) in this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.07524 As I said before, we can make QM local by shifting to another definition. The problem is that people usually don't do that and utter trivial tautologies devoid of any meaning like "QM is local because the Bell theorem is a...

Different positions in space are not sufficient for nonlocality. Position in time is also necessary. Events are nonlocal when space-like separated. Correlations can have local common causes or non-local common causes and finally do they have to be causally connected? I think that by construction...

Not in the EPR sense. This is difficult as I pointed out before. You perhaps are right he said "elements of reality" not "EPR elements of reality".

Allow me to disagree with an enphatic no! QM, our best theory, does not assume that. It is metaphysical because it assumes that physical properties actually exist before measurements. Experimental facts are about measurements, not what existed before the observation. Also, determinism does not...

I guess the discussion could go forever. But it is in the nature of discussing ideas that are hard to express accurately in words. All that I mean is this: to ask if a certain theory like QM (or HV) possesses the property called local causality (LC), it should be possible to test the theory...

In fact, there is a problem here with regards to the EPR paper. EPR introduced a metaphysical concept, i.e., "elements of physical reality". This has produced much unnecessary confusion to this day. Einstein immediately reacted against this and explained (in a letter to Schrodinger) how to...

Actually, no. Local causality(LC) and signal causality are concepts equally applicable to QM and hidden variables(HV). If local causality made sense only with HV theories, it wouldn't make sense to say that QM violates it. This is a logical problem. You can't ask what's the taste of the color...

Pardon me for stepping in. I think that according to the paper "position" is an element of physical reality(at least in special cases). However, I also think that it is an unnecessary metaphysical concept that Einstein himself immediately rejected. As it is well known, he preferred to argue...

I agree. I disagree with this part. If you want to test the local character of a theory, the concept must be applicable to it. In the example that concerns us here, QM does not pass the test for "local-causality" as defined by Bell and shown in the paper. However, QM passes the test for...