Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Jan 13, 2015 #1
    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."
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 13, 2015 #2

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    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
     
  4. Jan 13, 2015 #3
    Ehm, and where did Bell make such an assumption?!
     
  5. Jan 13, 2015 #4

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2015
  6. Jan 13, 2015 #5

    Matterwave

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  7. Jan 13, 2015 #6

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The policy for arxiv is:
    This paper is OK, at least so far...
     
  8. Jan 14, 2015 #7

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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! :-)
     
  9. Jan 14, 2015 #8
    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.
     
  10. Jan 14, 2015 #9

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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...)
     
  11. Jan 14, 2015 #10

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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."
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2015
  12. Jan 15, 2015 #11

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  13. Jan 15, 2015 #12
    Ah right - he meant of course the inequality. :)
     
  14. Jan 15, 2015 #13

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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. :confused:
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2015
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Arxiv: No Bell, no collapse, no spooky, no nonlocality
  1. Spooky entanglement (Replies: 40)

  2. Spooky Entanglement (Replies: 1)

  3. Local or Nonlocal? (Replies: 12)

Loading...