Bell's Theorem basic question on contextuality & locality

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around interpretations of Bell's Theorem, particularly concerning the existence of particles before measurement and the implications of locality and hidden variables. Participants explore various philosophical and theoretical perspectives on quantum mechanics, including the Copenhagen interpretation and the implications of the EPR paradox.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that Bell's Theorem indicates either particles do not exist before measurement or that hidden variables are present.
  • Others argue that Bell's Theorem demonstrates the impossibility of local hidden variable theories, suggesting that if interactions are local, then particles must exist before measurement.
  • A participant suggests that a more semantically correct expression might be that the status or properties of particles are undefined prior to measurement, rather than asserting they do not exist.
  • There are differing views on the interpretations of Neumaier's stance, with some believing he maintains a classical view while others assert he does not consider the world to be classical but rather uses classical analogues to explain quantum mechanics.
  • Participants express confusion about the implications of EPR and how different interpretations, such as those from Neumaier and Bhobba, reconcile with the concept of determinism and non-local influences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of Bell's Theorem, the nature of particles before measurement, or the interpretations of Neumaier and Bhobba. Multiple competing views remain, and the discussion reflects ongoing uncertainty and debate.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of locality, hidden variables, and the interpretations of quantum mechanics. The discussion also highlights the complexity of communicating advanced mathematical concepts in accessible language.

jlcd
Messages
274
Reaction score
7
I'm familiar with Bell's Theorem.. have studied it over the years. I'd just like to confirm if my belief is correct. In short. It shows either particles don't exist before measurement or there are hidden variables.. you know all those non-counterfactual and locality arguments.. Specker theorem etc. I know them. But I got confused lately when hbobba can't seem to understand what I'm saying.

So let me repeat. If you don't believe in non-local influence. Then particles don't exist before measurement correct? I tend to believe in the latter.. but is it right thing to say particles don't exist before measurement? What is the right words to say if it is not semantically correct?

Whatever, the essence is still particles don't exist before measurements.

In Physicsforums. the Copenhagen camps (note Ensemble is still cousin to Copenhagen) which is believed by Bill Hobba and company. They keep on saying it is all classical reality with only statistics or probability and it's what QM (and even QFT) is all about. But isn't it EPR shows it is not all classical reality? And particles don't really exist before measurements? Since hbobba believes particles exist before measurement (since this is what Newtonian classical world is all about). How does he or others view EPR.. there are non-local influence or everything is deterministic? Just like Neumaier, hbobba is incredibly advanced mathematically that they can no longer communicate well with beginners without using dense math. So hope others can explain in English. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jlcd said:
I'm familiar with Bell's Theorem.. have studied it over the years. I'd just like to confirm if my belief is correct. In short. It shows either particles don't exist before measurement or there are hidden variables

The point of Bell's theorem is to show that there AREN'T any hidden variables, or at least not if all interactions are local (propagate at lightspeed or slower).
 
stevendaryl said:
The point of Bell's theorem is to show that there AREN'T any hidden variables, or at least not if all interactions are local (propagate at lightspeed or slower).

So it's either non-local hidden variables or particles don't exist before measurement. Bohr believes the latter where its part of the experimental setup even if they are located light years away. So is it accurate to say particles don't exist before measurement if you don't believe in non-local hidden variables?
 
I guess the "semantically correct" expression would be the particles' status is undefined, or their properties are undefined. To say they don't exist is already saying something definite (like in their place is a vacuum state or something), which is wrong.
 
ddd123 said:
I guess the "semantically correct" expression would be the particles' status is undefined, or their properties are undefined. To say they don't exist is already saying something definite (like in their place is a vacuum state or something), which is wrong.

Ok. I can't fully understand Neumaier present long thread of it with very dense math. I know he believes in classical reality. So does he believe in non-local influence or hidden variables or no-go theorem regarding EPR and bell's theorem? Can anyone summarize his view with simple english? How does the distant correlations work in Neumaier view? determinism? hidden variables? non-local influence.. how can he make it classical?
 
I understood the opposite, that Neumaier doesn't really think the world is classical, just that classical analogues can be made to make QM look not weird. In the end I'll just disagree until he comes up with a serious explanation of EPR.

Nor does Bhobba think physics is classical, just that the whole point of QM is continuous transformations between pure states which, even though it's surely not a classical concept, for him it is intuitive. For me it's not. A difference between Neumaier and Bhobba is that the former believes in determinism and the latter doesn't.

So that's my breakdown on these PF's two users, for whatever reason you needed that.
 
jlcd said:
'd just like to confirm if my belief is correct. In short. It shows either particles don't exist before measurement or there are hidden variables.

That belief is completely incorrect. Bell's theorem shows that no local hidden variable theory can reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics.

As this thread is based on a misunderstanding, there is no point in continuing the discussion and the thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Bell's theorem claimed to be refuted - paper published by EPL
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
Undergrad Do Bell Experiments Show Local Overlap of Wave Functions Before Measurement?
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
6K
High School What I don't quite get about entanglement...
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Undergrad Local Causality and Bell's Second Theorem
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
High School Bell's Inequalities and the issue of non-locality
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
High School Is there another workable interpretation of the Bell Inequality?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Looking For Help Understanding Bell's Theorem, Hidden Variables & QM
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
8K
Undergrad Why are terms like "deterministic" rarely used in Bell context
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Bell inequality test without polarisation?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Some questions about "superdeterminism" and Bell's Theorem
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
13K