Binney's interpretation of Violation of Bell Inequalities

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

James Binney, an Oxford Professor, presents an unconventional interpretation of the violation of Bell inequalities, emphasizing an "instrumentalist" approach to Quantum Physics. He argues that wavefunction collapse is merely a computational convenience and does not reflect an underlying reality, rejecting the notion of non-locality. Binney concludes that the violation of Bell inequalities does not imply the existence of hidden variables or a definite direction for spin vectors, asserting that macroscopic objects only appear to have well-defined orientations due to their non-quantum states. His views challenge traditional interpretations and suggest a need for further critique and discussion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Bell's Theorem and its implications
  • Familiarity with Quantum Mechanics concepts, particularly wavefunction collapse
  • Knowledge of the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox
  • Awareness of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Bell's Theorem on local realism
  • Study the EPR experiment and its critiques
  • Examine the differences between measurement and fluctuation uncertainty in quantum mechanics
  • Explore James Binney's lectures and publications, particularly "The Physics of Quantum Mechanics"
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, students of Quantum Mechanics, and researchers interested in the philosophical implications of quantum theory and Bell inequalities.

  • #151
Anyway, fascinating as the hair-splitting about calculability and determinism may be, Binney actually does claim "Contrary to the claims of EPR, the results of Bob's measurement are consistent with the hemisphere containing the positron's spin being fixed at the outset and being unaffected by Alice's measurement."

There is no way he can make that claim unless the model allows calculation of Bob's results AND they agree with EPR/QM. The fact that the model allows some sort of results ("Binney correlations") may be consistent with determinism but EPR does not claim that all correlations are inconsistent with determinism only that quantum correlations are inconsistent with local determinism.

Binney correlations, if you do calculate them, are not quantum correlations. If you don't calculate them then his claim is meaningless.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Derek Potter said:
Anyway, fascinating as the hair-splitting about calculability and determinism may be, Binney actually does claim "Contrary to the claims of EPR, the results of Bob's measurement are consistent with the hemisphere containing the positron's spin being fixed at the outset and being unaffected by Alice's measurement."

There is no way he can make that claim unless the model allows calculation of Bob's results AND they agree with EPR/QM. The fact that the model allows some sort of results ("Binney correlations") may be consistent with determinism but EPR does not claim that all correlations are inconsistent with determinism only that quantum correlations are inconsistent with local determinism.

Binney correlations, if you do calculate them, are not quantum correlations. If you don't calculate them then his claim is meaningless.
Hint: Calculation and measurement are different conceptually and practically.
 
  • #153
Exactly. I rest my case.
 
  • #154
Derek Potter said:
Exactly. I rest my case.
Technically you had no case from the start IMO, you made a straw man argument with Binney's words, he simply is not saying what you think he is saying, he's clearly on Bell's side and opposing EPR determinism.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Alternative model for counterfactual definiteness in Bohm-like EPR
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
643
Undergrad Understanding Bell Inequality Proof: Explained from a Probability Perspective
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
Graduate Game theory, quantum physics and the Bell inequality (paper)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Could Tim Maudlin's Views on Bell and QM Be Flawed?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Graduate Hidden Assumptions in Bell's Theorem?
  • · Replies 333 ·
12
Replies
333
Views
19K
Undergrad Relational QM question from Rovelli's book Helgoland
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
Undergrad Is there any interpretation of QM that doesn't clash with intuition?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Graduate Understanding Barandes' microscopic theory of causality
  • · Replies 293 ·
10
Replies
293
Views
13K
Graduate Is there still a Wigner's friend paradox?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate 't Hooft cellular automaton interpretation
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K