Binney's interpretation of Violation of Bell Inequalities

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on James Binney's interpretation of the violation of Bell inequalities in quantum mechanics, particularly his instrumentalist approach and views on the implications of these violations. Participants explore the theoretical and conceptual aspects of quantum spin, local realism, and the nature of measurement in quantum systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Binney's interpretation suggests that wavefunction collapse is a convenient calculation tool rather than a reflection of microscopic reality, which he believes has definite physical values.
  • Binney argues that the violation of Bell inequalities does not imply non-locality and that the results of measurements can be consistent with a fixed orientation of the positron's spin, depending on Alice's measurement.
  • Others challenge Binney's stance, asserting that the violation of Bell's inequality inherently rules out local realism and that any interpretation suggesting local hidden variables must be tested against the established cos^2(b) correlation rule.
  • Some participants express confusion over Binney's acknowledgment of the violation of Bell inequalities while simultaneously claiming that hidden variables are ruled out, questioning the coherence of his position.
  • There is a discussion about whether inaccuracies in measuring spin could account for the consistent violations of Bell's inequalities, with some suggesting that quantum uncertainty rather than inaccuracy is at play.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding Binney's interpretation, particularly about the implications of Bell's theorem and the nature of spin measurements. Some agree with aspects of his view, while others challenge the validity of his conclusions and the consistency of his arguments.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the implications of Binney's claims, particularly regarding the definitions of local realism and hidden variables, as well as the statistical nature of Bell's theorem. The discussion reveals a lack of consensus on these complex issues.

  • #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
766
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
2K
Graduate Understanding Barandes' microscopic theory of causality
  • · Replies 338 ·
12
Replies
338
Views
17K
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