Can anti-realism really save nonlocality?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sahashmi
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
40 replies · 5K views
sahashmi said:
That’s why QM breaks relativity. We need a preferred frame
I think your problems with QM come from not understanding relativity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba, PeroK and weirdoguy
Physics news on Phys.org
martinbn said:
I think your problems with QM come from not understanding relativity.
There is no way to explain QM without breaking relativity.

A occurring before B and B occurring before A simultaneously violates logic. Both cannot be true. Something that is illogical can’t be true. And bell proved non locality to be true.

So either the first measurement influences the second or vice versa. Without an influence, there is no reason for independent stochastic random variables to be correlated to each other
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and PeroK
lodbrok said:
The EPR definition of realism doesn't say the observed property is real. It says "there exists a physical property corresponding to the observed property"
Any examples of "observed property" that are not real by definition?
I mean, if an observed property exists, by definition it must be real, or not?
 
sahashmi said:
A occurring before B and B occurring before A simultaneously violates logic. Both cannot be true.
Not understanding the simultaneity of relativity is the first sign that you have no understanding of relativity. That was my point.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and PeroK
martinbn said:
Not understanding the simultaneity of relativity is the first sign that you have no understanding of relativity. That was my point.
No, this has nothing to do with not understanding the simultaneity of relativity. I’m aware of what it says.

But you cannot explain QM with relativity intact. I’m saying that that relativity is wrong.

Relativity could simply be emergent and not fundamental, the same way Newtonian mechanics is wrong but its predictions still work. This principle has to be wrong because a) the correlations in QM cannot be explained otherwise and b) as a matter of logic, A occurring before B, and B occurring before A cannot both be true.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy, bhobba and PeroK
sahashmi said:
No, this has nothing to do with not understanding the simultaneity of relativity. I’m aware of what it says.

But you cannot explain QM with relativity intact. I’m saying that that relativity is wrong.

Relativity could simply be emergent and not fundamental, the same way Newtonian mechanics is wrong but its predictions still work. This principle has to be wrong because a) the correlations in QM cannot be explained otherwise and b) as a matter of logic,
This statement
sahashmi said:
A occurring before B, and B occurring before A cannot both be true.
is your own statement. If it isn't true, fine, but why do you blame it on relativity!
 
martinbn said:
This statement

is your own statement. If it isn't true, fine, but why do you blame it on relativity!
Relativity says that in the case of entanglement, either the first measurement occurs before the other or vice versa, depending on the frame. I’m saying that this is impossible given the correlations that occur.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: bhobba, PeroK and weirdoguy
sahashmi said:
Relativity says that in the case of entanglement, either the first measurement occurs before the other or vice versa, depending on the frame. I’m saying that this is impossible given the correlations that occur.
QM and relativity are combined in QFT. There's no physical reason to abandon relativity. In that respect you are simply wrong.

One alternative is that nature is nonlocal. In the sense that it can manage correlations without FTL influences. You might not like that idea, but there is no reason to dismiss the idea.

I don't like the idea of MWI, for example. But, that doesn't mean I think it must be wrong.

QFT is a successful theory, so there is no reason to abandon it on philosophical grounds.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
sahashmi said:
That’s why QM breaks relativity. We need a preferred frame

QFT, the most accurately verified theory we have, and basically at large distances, how nature must be (remember Wienberg's folk theorem), not only does not break relativity but is built on it. Special relativity, of course - general relativity is a whole new ball game.

Apologies to Berkeman; I did not notice the thread was closed. In my defence, the fact that QFT is built on special relativity is crucial.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited: