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

Bell's Experiments & Hidden Variables

  1. Dec 11, 2011 #1
    Hello everyone,

    I was reading about Bell's theorem on Wikipedia. One thing I found particularly interesting:
    In particular number 2. The points he made can be found at http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf . While I did not understand all the steps from Bell's Theorem, I think I did understand the objections this document raised against Bell's Theorem.

    I've got two questions:
    1. Is there anything fundamentally wrong with that paper of E. T. Jaynes and if not, why is Bell's Theorem still being considered to be valid by most?
    2. If the paper would be valid and a hidden variable theorem would be constructed, would Bell's Experiments not be pointless, as both the predictions by QM and the classical approach would be identical?

    Thanks in advance
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 11, 2011 #2
    I'd read all sides (of the meaning of Bell's theorem) and make a decision based on the merit of each side. You may find the original source to many of Bell's papers useful:

    http://thenookofwisdom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bell-john-speakable-and-unspeakable-in-quantum-mechanics-cup-1987kt225s.pdf [Broken]

    A good secondary source/summary consitent with his views (with his quotes) can also be found here:

    Local Causality and Completeness: Bell vs. Jarrett

    Other papers arguing this interpretation of Bell's theorem:

    Non-Local Realistic Theories and the Scope of the Bell Theorem

    A Criticism of the article "An experimental test of non-local realism"

    Against ‘Realism’

    Quantum non-locality and relativity: metaphysical intimations of modern physics
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  4. Dec 12, 2011 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The Bell theorem is often interpreted that it is not possible to have both reality and locality. But there is a way to save both, provided that you are ready to swallow one philosophically unpopular idea:
  5. Dec 12, 2011 #4
    Thanks for your answers guys!
  6. Dec 12, 2011 #5
    Maybe I'm mistaken but that view presented in your paper sounds a bit like Leibniz's monadology?
  7. Dec 13, 2011 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I know nothing about Leibniz's monadology, so I couldn't say.
    Anyway, in the paper I am not suggesting that this approach is better then the others. All I am saying is that such a possibility cannot be logically excluded. Whether one likes this approach or not, it's up to him/her. But IF you want both reality (in 3-space) and locality, and IF you don't want superdeterminism (fine tuned initial conditions) and backward causation, THEN it seems to be the only option that remains.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook