The forum discussion centers on the hidden assumptions in Bell's theorem, particularly those proposed by Karl Hess, Hans De Raedt, and Kristel Michielsen. They argue that Bell's theorem relies on assumptions such as the exclusion of time dependence and adherence to the algebra of real numbers. The implications of these assumptions suggest the possibility of local hidden variables that could theoretically explain quantum phenomena without violating Bell's inequalities. The discussion also critiques the validity of these claims and the feasibility of alternative models that challenge the established interpretations of quantum mechanics.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, quantum mechanics researchers, and students interested in the philosophical implications of quantum theory, particularly those exploring the foundations of quantum mechanics and the debates surrounding Bell's theorem.
Yes.Nullstein said:In the no-BSM case, QM predicts that there is no entanglement between 1&4 in the full ensemble
No, QM does not predict this. Cherry picking "predicts" this, but I don't agree that's a valid method.Nullstein said:and that there is an entangled subensemble.
We've already been over this multiple times. The math is one thing. Claims about what the math means and what math is relevant is another.Nullstein said:This fact follows from the axioms of QM