Arxiv: No Bell, no collapse, no spooky, no nonlocality

[Nick666]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5290v2.pdf

I'll just highlight some stuff

"
"We submit: Doesn’t quantum theory itself, which is a local
theory, account for its own predictions?
As the authors of this quote know very well, experi-
mental data contradict Bell’s theorem [22,23], which im-
plies that — as a statement about physical systems — the
theorem is wrong.

Since there is no error in the reason-
ing that establishes the theorem from its assumptions, the
flaw must be in the assumptions. Specifically, it is the as-
sumption that a mechanism exists that determines which
detector will click for the next photon registered by an
apparatus of the kind depicted in Fig. 1. There is no such
deterministic mechanism — quantum processes are fun-
damentally probabilistic, events are randomly realized —
and the violation of Bell’s theorem by actual data confirms
that.
...
Find-
ings of an inadequate nonquantum formalism are irrele-
vant for quantum physics. If the findings are at variance
with the experimental data, as is the case here, we are
reminded of the inappropriateness of the reasoning. It fol-
lows that common sense of that sort does not apply in the
quantum realm.
Rather disturbingly, though, it has become acceptable
to turn the argument into its opposite. It is taken for
granted that quantum physics
should
obey such common
sense, but then that inadequate nonquantum formalism
needs nonlocal features — or so it seems."

 

[bhobba]

which is a local theory,

That's an interesting point

Non relativistic quantum theory obeys the Galilean POR which is inherently non-local. Its Quantum Field Theory that's local - but it's local in a peculiar way as defined by the cluster decomposition property
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-in-qft.547574/:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_decomposition_theorem

However it only applies to uncorrelated systems - but entangled systems are correlated and hence evades the principle. So basically QM is ambivalent to if EPR type experiments are local or not. Hence you can take either view in Bells theorem.

Thanks
Bill

 

[harrylin]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5290v2.pdf

I'll just highlight some stuff

"[..] the
flaw must be in the assumptions. Specifically, it is the as-
sumption that a mechanism exists that determines which
detector will click for the next photon registered by an
apparatus of the kind depicted in Fig. 1. [..]"

Ehm, and where did Bell make such an assumption?!

 

[atyy]

Bell's early paper is a bit ambiguous on a point, leading to some controversy about what he meant. However, that is an historical issue. The physics nowadays is well understood (see for example Susskind's quantum mechanics text in The Theoretical Minimum).

The are two definitions of nonlocality
(1) no faster than light transmission of classical information
(2) explainability of distant correlations by a locally causal theory

Quantum mechanics is local in the sense of (1), but quantum mechanics is either not local or does not explain the distant correlations in the sense of (2).

Englert is using the first definition of locality when he writes "We close this subject with noting that a very basic notion of Local Quantum Physics (the title of Haag’s book [27]) is precisely the locality concept of Bell’s theorem, namely that “the free-will decisions by Alice should have no influence on the click frequencies that Bob records in his experiment, and vice versa.” In the technical terms of relativistic quantum field theory, this is the requirement that the local observables in Alice’s space-time region commute with the local observables in Bob’s region, which is at a space-like separation from Alice’s.". By that definition, he is correct that quantum mechanics is local.

 

[Matterwave]

Is this paper peer reviewed? I think PF rules with regards to posting new papers says we should only discuss peer reviewed papers.

Probably good form would be to post the peer reviewed journal in which it was published and then post the arxiv if the journal is behind a pay wall.

 

[Nugatory]

Is this paper peer reviewed? I think PF rules with regards to posting new papers says we should only discuss peer reviewed papers.

The policy for arxiv is:

References that appear only on http://www.arxiv.org/ (which is not peer-reviewed) are subject to review by the Mentors. We recognize that in some fields this is the accepted means of professional communication, but in other fields we prefer to wait until formal publication elsewhere.

This paper is OK, at least so far...

 

[DrChinese]

From the paper: "Since there is no error in the reason-
ing that establishes the theorem from its assumptions, the
flaw must be in the assumptions. Specifically, it is the as-
sumption that a mechanism exists that determines which
detector will click for the next photon registered by an
apparatus of the kind depicted in Fig. 1. There is no such
deterministic mechanism — quantum processes are fun-
damentally probabilistic"

So no hidden variables. By that definition, Bell still holds:

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

So everybody's happy! :-)

 

[Ilja]

I think one can summarize http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5290v2.pdf in the following way: SHUT UP AND CALCULATE!1111111

It does not sound like a scientific article discussing some controversial ideas, but like a declaration of a dogma one has to follow, without further argumentation. Sorry, this happens very seldom, but this is a paper where I don't care much about the arguments simply because I dislike the way they have been presented. I like polemics, and usually have no problem even with very polemical articles - but this article has managed to appear as an exception.

 

[DrChinese]

I think one can summarize http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5290v2.pdf in the following way: SHUT UP AND CALCULATE!1111111

I think that about sums it up. :-) Unless there is some special need to fill in some blanks, existing theory needs no specific augmentation with labels anyway. (As much as I am guilty of the same...)

 

[atyy]

I think one can summarize http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5290v2.pdf in the following way: SHUT UP AND CALCULATE!1111111

It does not sound like a scientific article discussing some controversial ideas, but like a declaration of a dogma one has to follow, without further argumentation. Sorry, this happens very seldom, but this is a paper where I don't care much about the arguments simply because I dislike the way they have been presented. I like polemics, and usually have no problem even with very polemical articles - but this article has managed to appear as an exception.

Initially I too thought the article was completely "shut-up-and-calculate", in contrast to Landau and Lifshitz and Weinberg, who acknowledge the measurement problem either directly or indirectly, before passing to shut-up-and-calculate. But in defence of the article in the OP, although it seems to say there is no "measurement problem", which would be wrong, it actually does acknowledge a measurement problem, but unusually chooses to call it by a different name: the problem of definite outcomes (which bhobba also likes to use): "Fifth, since neither decoherence nor any other mechanism select one particular outcome (see Sec. 8), the whole “measurement problem” reduces to the question Why is there one specific outcome? which is asking Why are there randomly realized events? in the particular context considered. This harkens back to Sec. 1, where we noted that quantum theory cannot give an answer."

I think this is in part because the article is dedicated to Haag for his birthday. In Haag's book (1996, p301) the measurement problem is stated as: "Of course the realization of a measurement result as a fact and the possibility of using it for the characterization of a subensemble of objects for subsequent study is not fully reconcilable with the quantum theoretic description of the dynamics of the total system of object plus apparatus. ... The statistical predictions are verified by the study of many individual cases. Each of them yields a measurement result, regarded as the transition from possibility to fact. If we do not want to attribute this transition to a change in the consciousness of an observer, then we must say that the realization of individual facts out of a large number of possibilities is a basic feature in nature which is not explained by decoherence, but has to be either postulated separately or explained in a picture of nature using new concepts."

 

[Demystifier]

"...experimental data contradict Bell’s theorem..."

I haven't read the paper, but this part is sufficient to conclude that I shouldn't. It has never happened in science, and never will, that experimental data contradict a theorem. Someone who thinks differently does not understand what a theorem is.

 

[harrylin]

I haven't read the paper, but this part is sufficient to conclude that I shouldn't. It has never happened in science, and never will, that experimental data contradict a theorem. Someone who thinks differently does not understand what a theorem is.

Ah right - he meant of course the inequality. :)

 

[Demystifier]

Ah right - he meant of course the inequality. :)

Given my signature, I guess I should be more tolerant when one does not mean what one says. :D

On the other hand, the guy on my avatar would probably react in a way similar to my reaction, if someone told him that a theorem was contradicted by experiments.