Getting rid of nonlocality from quantum physics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of nonlocality in quantum physics, particularly in relation to various interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Växjö interpretation. Participants explore the implications of nonlocality, the ontology of quantum states, and the philosophical underpinnings of quantum theory, including the distinction between epistemological and ontological perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that quantum theory is local and that the concept of "spooky action at a distance" is a misinterpretation stemming from the Copenhagen interpretation.
  • There is a distinction made between Lüdder nonlocality and Bell nonlocality, with some suggesting that confusion arises from not specifying which type is being referenced.
  • Questions are raised about the ontology of the microscopic world when not observed, with some asserting that the Växjö interpretation does not provide an ontological framework.
  • One participant posits that the Bell theorem implies that certain ontological models must be nonlocal, questioning whether local models compatible with quantum predictions exist.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics delivers probabilities for measurement outcomes, suggesting that this suffices for describing observable facts without delving into non-mathematical interpretations.
  • Some express skepticism about the relevance of ontological discussions, arguing that physicists should focus on observable phenomena rather than abstract interpretations.
  • There are differing views on whether the microscopic world consists of concrete entities or is merely a representation of potential outcomes, with some asserting that it is made of fundamental particles like quarks and leptons.
  • The role of contextuality in measurements is discussed, with references to Bohr's perspective on the importance of the experimental arrangement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of nonlocality and ontology in quantum mechanics, with no clear consensus reached. Disagreements persist regarding the implications of the Bell theorem and the interpretation of quantum states when unobserved.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference the limitations of non-mathematical statements in interpreting quantum mechanics, and the ongoing debate about the implications of different interpretations on the understanding of reality.

  • #121
@PeroK

I merely want to point out that everyone has a story which is influenced by personal ideological beliefs. That's why I - as a working physicist - adopt an instrumentalist's point of view.
My personal story could be, for example: The mind is fundamental and the objects only exist as illusions in my mind. Neither your story nor my story can be proved or disproved by means of the scientific method.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and bhobba
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Lord Jestocost said:
@PeroK

I merely want to point out that everyone has a story which is influenced by personal ideological beliefs. That's why I - as a working physicist - adopt an instrumentalist's point of view.
My personal story could be, for example: The mind is fundamental and the objects only exist as illusions in my mind. Neither your story nor my story can be proved or disproved by means of the scientific method.
This is why I rarely reply to posts in this sub-forum.

Whenever anyone is confronted with a hard question, they can retreat into an argument barely discernible from Zen Buddhism!

It seems to me a huge unnecessary burden on orthodox QM to explain how specific things (things with specific properties) come into existence, as opposed to other things with other properties. The simplest explanation is that something with the specific properties exists and measurements are compatible with that thing and those properties.

Explaining how properties can be not well-defined until measurement is bad enough. But, that the thing itself comes in and out of existence is asking too much, for no theoretical benefit that I can see.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy, vanhees71 and martinbn
  • #123
Lord Jestocost said:
@PeroK

I merely want to point out that everyone has a story which is influenced by personal ideological beliefs. That's why I - as a working physicist - adopt an instrumentalist's point of view.
My personal story could be, for example: The mind is fundamental and the objects only exist as illusions in my mind. Neither your story nor my story can be proved or disproved by means of the scientific method.
Read Becker’s book https://www.google.com/books/edition/What_Is_Real/X4QqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover He makes a good case for the relevance of going beyond instrumentalism.
 
  • #124
The OP appears to be gone and the discussion seems to have covered every possible viewpoint. Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier, vanhees71 and bhobba

Similar threads

  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
13K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
733
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • · Replies 226 ·
8
Replies
226
Views
24K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
13K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K