Bell's Theorem: Proving Its Vitality in Local Realistic Models

[atyy]

I would. I would especially put above the inequality the general idea of anomalies - that certain quantum theories may inevitably break a symmetry of the classical limit.

I wonder if it's known which work Bell preferred?

BTW, have any anomalies been awarded the Nobel Prize (not that that's necessarily the final indicator, but it's good for bar talk)?

Also, just to throw in an additional comparison, how about the Berry phase? In a sense that's in old quantum mechanics and has some of the character of "fundamentals", and so could be an end, yet historically it seems to have been a beginning too. (They really need to award a Nobel for that, for IgNobel aesthetics;)

 

[Physics Monkey]

I wonder if it's known which work Bell preferred?

BTW, have any anomalies been awarded the Nobel Prize (not that that's necessarily the final indicator, but it's good for bar talk)?

Also, just to throw in an additional comparison, how about the Berry phase? In a sense that's in old quantum mechanics and has some of the character of "fundamentals", and so could be an end, yet historically it seems to have been a beginning too. (They really need to award a Nobel for that, for IgNobel aesthetics;)

I don't know, that's an interesting question.

There has been a Dirac Prize partially for the chiral anomaly given to Adler and Jackiw (Bell had died).

I would also put Berry's phase above Bell's theorem. I have used it often, as have many others.

 

[unusualname]

I like this question. I will just briefly state why I don't think Bell (= Bell inequalities, etc.) is that important.

1. I accept that Bell is a useful filter for theories.
2. I accept that Bell plays some role in "foundations" (related to 1)

The reason why I don't think Bell is terribly important is because I don't see it leading to anything else. It feels like the end rather than the beginning for me. Perhaps this is simply my ignorance. If so, I would be happy to be corrected.

I am a practicing quantum many-body theorist which means I think about all the great mysteries associated with entanglement, many interacting quantum dof, quantum computers, quantum dynamics, and all that good stuff. I have never used Bell for anything in my field, and I don't know anyone in the same general line of work who has. The people I know who work with Bell seem mostly to test the inequality in ever more elaborate settings. This is why I see Bell as an end rather than a beginning. For my money, there are a lot of ideas in physics (not to mention science in general) that are more profound and productive than Bell. This is not to say that Bell isn't cool, only that my criteria for importance are based in part on the ability of an idea to lead to new ideas and results.

I believe Bell was due to get the Nobel Prize in Physics after the work of Aspect, Zeilinger (maybe later?) and others confirmed his result, but he died unexpectedly and Nobels are not awarded posthumously.

Bell settled the EPR argument, and showed local hidden variables were not nature, so quite a big deal really.

 

[atyy]

I don't know, that's an interesting question.

There has been a Dirac Prize partially for the chiral anomaly given to Adler and Jackiw (Bell had died).

I would also put Berry's phase above Bell's theorem. I have used it often, as have many others.

Jackiw, Bell's collaborator, has, with Shimony, written a very interesting article about Bell's entire work, beginning from his early years. At first, I was going to read it mischievously as "depth"=inequality and "breadth"=anomaly, but the two strands seem to have run in parallel. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0105046

 

[Physics Monkey]

I believe Bell was due to get the Nobel Prize in Physics after the work of Aspect, Zeilinger (maybe later?) and others confirmed his result, but he died unexpectedly and Nobels are not awarded posthumously.

Perhaps. Or perhaps he would have gotten it for anomalies instead. This is (partially) what the Dirac medal was given to Jackiw and Adler for after Bell died.

Bell settled the EPR argument, and showed local hidden variables were not nature, so quite a big deal really.

Well, as I already explained, I believe such statements imply a degree of objectivity that is debatable. Don't get me wrong, Bell's theorem is great, but in my view it has more to do with what quantum mechanics is not than with what quantum mechanics is. I am more interested in the latter and hence place greater subjective value on ideas that I feel advance that goal. And I continue to see the theorem as an end rather than a beginning.

 

[edpell]

To me Bell's Inequality seems like Michelson and Morley's result. We are just waiting for someone to explain it. I think the explanation will be as important as Einstein's.

 

[Gordon Watson]

I believe Bell was due to get the Nobel Prize in Physics after the work of Aspect, Zeilinger (maybe later?) and others confirmed his result, but he died unexpectedly and Nobels are not awarded posthumously.

Aspect and Zeilinger are (principally) experimentalists. Their experiments confirmed the QM result: NOT Bell's.