Binney's interpretation of Violation of Bell Inequalities

Click For Summary
James Binney, an Oxford professor, presents an unconventional view on the violation of Bell inequalities, asserting that quantum mechanics does not imply non-locality. He adopts an "instrumentalist" perspective, treating the Copenhagen Interpretation as a practical tool rather than a true representation of reality. Binney argues that the spin of particles like electrons does not have a definite direction, suggesting that measurements yield only probabilistic outcomes rather than fixed values. His conclusion is that the violation of Bell inequalities does not necessitate a revision of local realism, which has sparked debate among students and scholars. This interpretation raises questions about the implications of quantum mechanics and the nature of reality, challenging traditional views on entanglement and measurement.
  • #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

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
Undergrad Relational QM question from Rovelli's book Helgoland
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
Graduate Hidden Assumptions in Bell's Theorem?
  • · Replies 333 ·
12
Replies
333
Views
19K
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 292 ·
10
Replies
292
Views
12K
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
4K
Undergrad Is Many Worlds Interpretation Compatible with ER=EPR?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K