- #1

- 144

- 2

- Thread starter JPBenowitz
- Start date

- #1

- 144

- 2

- #2

Nugatory

Mentor

- 13,249

- 6,130

Where in Bell's proof of his theorem do you see such an assumption being used?The apparent paradox associate with Bell's Theorems emerges from the implicit assumptions....

- #3

- 144

- 2

I have no qualms with the proof itself but the conclusions drawn from it.Where in Bell's proof of his theorem do you see such an assumption being used?

- #4

- 144

- 2

- #5

atyy

Science Advisor

- 14,319

- 2,552

Bell's notion of local causality does indeed assume a background classical Minkowski spacetime, or at least a background classical pseudo-Riemannian spacetime of known topology. The application of the Bell inequalities to infer that there is no theory obeying relativistic causality that can explain the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics is not affected by the possibility you raise, since we can define the predictions of quantum mechanics on such a spacetime. On the other hand, the application of the Bell inequalities to real experiments to infer that Nature itself is nonlocal may be affected by such considerations, where it is only one of many loopholes.This necessitates that quantum spacetime must have more structure than Minkowski spacetime. The apparent paradox associate with Bell's Theorems emerges from the implicit assumptions of the underlying topology of spacetime.

- #6

DrChinese

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,424

- 1,226

The usual conclusion is:I have no qualms with the proof itself but the conclusions drawn from it.

What's problematic about that? If there are hidden variables, they cannot be local to the quantum object. Even with your hypothesis of spacetime, any hidden variables would not be considered local. Local meaning that only "nearby" (relative to c) influences can impact the outcome.

Also: please be aware that the state of the art in Bell tests has come a long way. It is possible to entangle particles that a) have never existed in each others' light cones; b) have never even existed at the same time; and c) are entangled AFTER they no longer exist. All of these situations are consistent with standard QM but inconsistent with many traditional views of either locality or realism.

So make of it what you will, we don't have a complete description of spacetime (maybe) or we don't have a complete description of "something" (not sure what). We simply know a "classical" perspective won't cut it. :-) That has to be good for something!

- #7

- 144

- 2

- Last Post

- Replies
- 95

- Views
- 6K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 264

- Views
- 25K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 199

- Views
- 25K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 125

- Views
- 7K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 34

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 905

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 2K