Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Disproofs of Bell, GHZ, and Hardy Type Theorems and the Illusion of Entanglement

  1. May 6, 2009 #1
    Hey guys, hope your all well. Was wondering what people make of the claims made in the paper 'Disproofs of Bell, GHZ, and Hardy Type Theorems and the Illusion of Entanglement' by Joy Christian ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259 ) where he claims ''An elementary topological error in Bell's representation of the EPR elements of reality is identified. Once recognized, it leads to a topologically correct local-realistic framework that provides exact, deterministic, and local underpinning of at least the Bell, GHZ-3, GHZ-4, and Hardy states. The correlations exhibited by these states are shown to be exactly the classical correlations among the points of a 3 or 7-sphere, both of which are closed under multiplication, and hence preserve the locality condition of Bell. The alleged non-localities of these states are thus shown to result from misidentified topologies of the EPR elements of reality. When topologies are correctly identified, local-realistic completion of any arbitrary entangled state is always guaranteed in our framework. This vindicates EPR, and entails that quantum entanglement is best understood as an illusion.''

    I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts and opinions on this. Cheers guys and stay safe : )
  2. jcsd
  3. May 6, 2009 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Er... Bell-type experiments are only ONE way to test quantum entanglement. Another one would be going beyond the diffraction limit.

    Nature v.429 p.161 and p.158.

    How come that wasn't mentioned?

    This is not BTSM topic. It is QM. And in this case, we need to wait until this is published first before we spend time on it. If it doesn't get published, then how are we to know that we haven't wasted our time on something that isn't even considered to be valid by those in the community?

  4. May 6, 2009 #3
    My mistake for posting in the wrong area, appologies. When i first saw it i thought 'crackpot' but im no expert in this area and was curious as to the veracity of its claims.
  5. May 7, 2009 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Christian's work has been discussed here before, from which I gather that several rebuttals have been posted on arXiv, along with a rejoinder from Christian. But has he gotten anything through peer review and published in a "real journal" yet?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook