Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox.

[charlylebeaugosse]

Most people would say that no photons arrive at detector 2.

You are right: I could have dispensed of a long post. Hope that it has interest t some anyhow.

 

[ThomasT]

If there's no underlying reality, then it's possible.
Experiments suggest that there's an underlying reality.
Therefore, it's not possible.

... we could make it simple and say...

If QM is correct, then we are left with these options:

* locality + non-realism

* non-locality + realism

* non-locality + non-realism

How is this simpler? You present three alternatives. I presented only two, and offered a logical conclusion. How to decide among them? Note, we'll stipulate that qm is correct.

Note also that the OP isn't asking whether certain formulations are viable. He's asking whether EPR-type action at a distance is possible (which entails that the observation of something or other is, instantaneously, dependent on the observation of something else, which might be a million light years away).

Bell proved that a certain type of LHV formulation of individual results is compatible with the statistical predictions of qm. Subsequent experiments have verified that Bell-type LHV formulations agree with individual results.
So, Bell showed, and experiments have verified, that individual experimental results are due to properties of underlying disturbances, incident on filters and detectors, that exist prior to and independent of filtration and detection.

On the other hand, Bell also showed, and experiments have verified, that the same Bell LHV formulations which are compatible with individual results are incompatible with joint results.

So, we're faced with what might be called Bell's Paradox: individual results are produced by an observer-independent underlying reality, but joint results (vis the same representation) show that an underlying reality cannot exist.

So, what's the bottom line, the best conclusion regarding what Bell tests (or any quantum experiments for that matter) show? Well, for my money, I think that they show the undeniable existence of an underlying reality. And, of course, if there's an underlying reality, then it exists (necessarily, by definition) whether we happen to be probing it or not, ie., it exists independent of observation -- in which case EPR-type action at a distance is ruled out, ie., impossible.

Of course, there are number of other sorts of nonlocalities. But they're not properly the subject of this thread.

 

[RUTA]

If there's no underlying reality, then it's possible.
Experiments suggest that there's an underlying reality.
Therefore, it's not possible.

This is not a deductively valid argument. You (tacitly) assume if and only if in premise one. For example:

P1. If you're shot in the head, you die.
P2. You weren't shot in the head.
C. You're not dead.

But, you could've been stabbed, poisoned, run over by a truck, etc., and be dead even if you weren't shot in the head, so the conclusion is invalid.

Bell proved that a certain type of LHV formulation of individual results is compatible with the statistical predictions of qm. Subsequent experiments have verified that Bell-type LHV formulations agree with individual results.
So, Bell showed, and experiments have verified, that individual experimental results are due to properties of underlying disturbances, incident on filters and detectors, that exist prior to and independent of filtration and detection.

If experiments indicated the existence of "disturbance-causing entities," I doubt Bohr, Ulfbeck, Mottelson, and Zeilinger would have claimed otherwise. Certainly, our interpretation would not have been accepted as a possibility by the foundations community if this was held to be true.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

This is not a deductively valid argument. You (tacitly) assume if and only if in premise one. For example:

P1. If you're shot in the head, you die.
P2. You weren't shot in the head.
C. You're not dead.

But, you could've been stabbed, poisoned, run over by a truck, etc., and be dead even if you weren't shot in the head, so the conclusion is invalid.

I think ThomasT has mixed up Counterfactual Definiteness (CFD) with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional" ...

The difference between indicative and counterfactual conditionals can be illustrated with a pair of examples:

1. If Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, then someone else did.
2. If Oswald had not shot Kennedy, then someone else would have.

The first sentence is an indicative conditional that is intuitively true. The second is a counterfactual conditional that is not necessarily true.

Maybe we do need that https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2845966&postcount=1395" ...?

 

[charlylebeaugosse]

How is this simpler? You present three alternatives. I presented only two, and offered a logical conclusion. How to decide among them? Note, we'll stipulate that qm is correct.

Note also that the OP isn't asking whether certain formulations are viable. He's asking whether EPR-type action at a distance is possible (which entails that the observation of something or other is, instantaneously, dependent on the observation of something else, which might be a million light years away).

Bell proved that a certain type of LHV formulation of individual results is compatible with the statistical predictions of qm. Subsequent experiments have verified that Bell-type LHV formulations agree with individual results.
So, Bell showed, and experiments have verified, that individual experimental results are due to properties of underlying disturbances, incident on filters and detectors, that exist prior to and independent of filtration and detection.

On the other hand, Bell also showed, and experiments have verified, that the same Bell LHV formulations which are compatible with individual results are incompatible with joint results.

So, we're faced with what might be called Bell's Paradox: individual results are produced by an observer-independent underlying reality, but joint results (vis the same representation) show that an underlying reality cannot exist.

So, what's the bottom line, the best conclusion regarding what Bell tests (or any quantum experiments for that matter) show? Well, for my money, I think that they show the undeniable existence of an underlying reality. And, of course, if there's an underlying reality, then it exists (necessarily, by definition) whether we happen to be probing it or not, ie., it exists independent of observation -- in which case EPR-type action at a distance is ruled out, ie., impossible.

Of course, there are number of other sorts of nonlocalities. But they're not properly the subject of this thread.

What are the references of the results of Bell that are quoted: this does not resemble what I know. If this has to do with Bell1964(Physics) , then please explain the relation between this work of Bell and the proposed interpretation.
Thanks,
CleBG

 

[DevilsAvocado]

How is this simpler? You present three alternatives. I presented only two, and offered a logical conclusion. How to decide among them? Note, we'll stipulate that qm is correct.

I don’t know how many times we have to mangle this back and forth before the message goes thru. If we have two mutually dependent variables and we don’t know which is true or false, the only possible options are these:

• true/false
• false/true
• false/false
• true/true

Now, Bell's Theorem has proven that if QM is correct we can’t have locality=true/realism=true, i.e. Local Realism (LR) or Local Hidden Variables (LHV), therefore we are left with these three options:

• locality=true/realism=false
  
  
• locality=false/realism=true
  
  
• locality=false/realism=false

Note also that the OP isn't asking whether certain formulations are viable. He's asking whether EPR-type action at a distance is possible (which entails that the observation of something or other is, instantaneously, dependent on the observation of something else, which might be a million light years away).

I can’t see how the three remaining options don’t make this absolutely clear to OP...??

Bell proved that a certain type of LHV formulation of individual results is compatible with the statistical predictions of qm.

This is mumbo-jumbo and dead wrong. This is what Bell's Theorem says:

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.​

So, Bell showed, and experiments have verified, that individual experimental results are due to properties of underlying disturbances, incident on filters and detectors, that exist prior to and independent of filtration and detection.

Sophisticated mumbo-jumbo and dead wrong.

On the other hand, Bell also showed, and experiments have verified, that the same Bell LHV formulations which are compatible with individual results are incompatible with joint results.

Well, this is the whole point, isn’t it?? How on Earth can you say anything about locality by running your nose into ONE polarizer? I thought you took a break to study this thoroughly...??

So, we're faced with what might be called Bell's Paradox: individual results are produced by an observer-independent underlying reality, but joint results (vis the same representation) show that an underlying reality cannot exist.

There is nothing called "Bell's Paradox". If you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox" it’s not about EPR or entanglement, it’s about the physical reality of length contraction.

Bell's Theorem do not say anything definite about "an underlying reality", it just says that Local Realism (or Local Hidden Variables) is not compatible with current understanding of QM. You could have Non-Local Hidden Variables (NLHV) for example, and that would be compatible with QM.

So, what's the bottom line, the best conclusion regarding what Bell tests (or any quantum experiments for that matter) show? Well, for my money, I think that they show the undeniable existence of an underlying reality. And, of course, if there's an underlying reality, then it exists (necessarily, by definition) whether we happen to be probing it or not, ie., it exists independent of observation -- in which case EPR-type action at a distance is ruled out, ie., impossible.

Dead wrong again, If QM is correct you can’t have Locality + Realism, it’s incompatible with QM.

I think we all can agree that RUTA is the only working scientist in this thread, and as a member of the scientific community, and as PhD Professor of Physics, I think we can trust in that what he has to say:

When I first entered the foundations community (1994), there were still a few conference presentations arguing that the statistical and/or experimental analyses of EPR-Bell experiments were flawed. Such talks have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Virtually everyone agrees that the EPR-Bell experiments and QM are legit, so we need a significant change in our worldview.

That the information is available AFTER the fact doesn't bear on a possible CAUSE for the correlations. The point is that the detector setting at site A is NOT available to site B BEFORE the detection event occurs at site B. If this information is available prior to detection, the correlations in the outcomes can be orchestrated to violate Bell's inequality. No one disputes this fact -- you have to keep the outcome at each site dependent ONLY upon information AT THAT SITE to have the conundrum about their correlations.

Thus, there are generally two ways to account for EPR-Bell correlations. 1) The detection events are separable and you have superluminal exchange of information. 2) The detection events are not separable, e.g., the spin of the entangled electrons is not a property of each electron. The first property is often called "locality" and the second property "realism."

Violations of Bell inequalities imply nonlocality and/or nonseparability.

So, nonseparability alone would do the trick, thereby saving locality (no FTL causal connections).

Science has not proven nonlocality. I'm a physicist who believes the Bell experiments are legit, but these experiments don't prove nonlocality; they prove nonlocality and/or nonseparability. So, it's possible that we have nonseparability and locality.

And everything that RUTA says lead unquestionably to these three (3) options, again:

• locality=true/realism=false
  
  
• locality=false/realism=true
  
  
• locality=false/realism=false

For those who do not understand this, I recommend https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2846608&postcount=1407".

 

[RUTA]

I think we all can agree that RUTA is the only working scientist in this thread, and as a member of the scientific community, and as PhD Professor of Physics, I think we can trust in that what he has to say

Well, my research resides in the foundations of physics and I try to convey here what I've learned from interacting with that community. However, I'm not a leader in this field by any means, so if any of my statements conflict with those of Zeilinger, Price, Vaidman, Hardy, etc., you know who to believe

 

[unusualname]

don't forget

locality=true/realism=true

and we also have superdeterminism (ie the correlations are predetermined)

Though that is too depressing to contemplate.

Once we resolve the true nature of reality, I feel these debates will seem very naive, especially if we're living in some kind of holographic construction of spacetime, with the hilbert space of QM mapping onto our perceived 3D reality in an incredibly devious manner...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Well, my research resides in the foundations of physics and I try to convey here what I've learned from interacting with that community. However, I'm not a leader in this field by any means, so if any of my statements conflict with those of Zeilinger, Price, Vaidman, Hardy, etc., you know who to believe

It’s great to have you around RUTA. It doesn’t matter that you’re not the leader in this field – you are the "warranty" in this thread for one of the central points in PF Global Guidelines:

Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound.

Thanks!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

don't forget

locality=true/realism=true

and we also have superdeterminism (ie the correlations are predetermined)

Though that is too depressing to contemplate.

Yes, you are right. And it’s not only the correlations that are predetermined – everything is predetermined, including this conversation.

If I "decide" to type this: %&”¤%&”(=)(“()=!=?
And then "change" my mind to type this: oiwuiowurioweuwerp

You could ask – what the heck is the "predetermined meaning" of this? And I can’t find a good answer... other than it’s completely crazy, and I can’t see how science could survive this doom...

And why are we discussing something that’s already predetermined??

Also MWI will give us locality=true/realism=true, but I don’t know how to "weigh" unproven interpretations and "wild" hypothesis... maybe RUTA can tell...

Once we resolve the true nature of reality, I feel these debates will seem very naive,

Of course you are absolutely right. It will seem exactly as naive as when Newton made a strong reservation to his own law of gravity and the notion of "action at a distance".

That’s why these "personal feelings" on what is "right & wrong" almost makes me laugh. What do nature care about us and our "personal feelings" on how "things" should work?? It’s just silly.

especially if we're living in some kind of holographic construction of spacetime, with the hilbert space of QM mapping onto our perceived 3D reality in an incredibly devious manner...

Does it really have to be "incredibly devious"? Couldn’t it also be "incredibly obvious" as well? If you bake spacetime into 2D, Alice & Bob would be positioned along a straight line. If the "QM world" is 1D, then Alice & Bob would be in the same place (looking at the line from the "edge"), right?

Just some "personal thoughts"...

 

[unusualname]

Does it really have to be "incredibly devious"? Couldn’t it also be "incredibly obvious" as well? If you bake spacetime into 2D, Alice & Bob would be positioned along a straight line. If the "QM world" is 1D, then Alice & Bob would be in the same place (looking at the line from the "edge"), right?

Just some "personal thoughts"...

I sometimes wish it does turn out to be as nice and simple as that, but you've got to believe that the obvious models have been dismissed for good reasons (rather like all the simple "proofs" of fermat's last theorem never worked)

Unfortunately it's looking like it will be a bit more involved, eg:
Holography and non-locality in a closed vacuum-dominated universe

It's frustrating to live in a time with so much still unknown.

 

[nismaratwork]

I sometimes wish it does turn out to be as nice and simple as that, but you've got to believe that the obvious models have been dismissed for good reasons (rather like all the simple "proofs" of fermat's last theorem never worked)

Unfortunately it's looking like it will be a bit more involved, eg:
Holography and non-locality in a closed vacuum-dominated universe

It's frustrating to live in a time with so much still unknown.

I'm a big fan of the Holographic Principle; it resolves so many of those unknowns, but one thing... isn't it better to be deviled by questions than have every answer? I love the fodder for curiosity, and since omniscience isn't an option, I'll take a period of record progress and learning.

 

[RUTA]

It's frustrating to live in a time with so much still unknown.

“In the past, fundamental new discoveries have led to changes – including theoretical, technological, and conceptual changes – that could not even be imagined when the discoveries were first made. The discovery that we live in a universe that, deep down, allows for Bell-like influences strikes me as just such a fundamental, important new discovery. … If I am right about this, then we are living in a period that is in many ways like that of the early 1600s. At that time, new discoveries, such as those involving Galileo and the telescope, eventually led to an entirely new way of thinking about the sort of universe we live in. Today, at the very least, the discovery of Bell-like influences forces us to give up the Newtonian view that the universe is entirely a mechanistic universe. And I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg, and that this discovery, like those in the 1600s, will lead to a quite different view of the sort of universe in which we live.” Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science, Richard DeWitt, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p 304.

I think it's an exciting time to be a physicist!

 

[ThomasT]

I can’t see how the three remaining options don’t make this absolutely clear to OP...??

The OP is asking about what's possible in reality, not what sorts of theories are possible. Your three options are about models, not reality. They don't address the OP's question.

In order to answer the OP's question we just need to answer one question: do (any) quantum experimental phenomena indicate the existence of an underlying reality? Do, say, optical Bell tests indicate that the detectors are detecting disturbances transmitted by the filters, and that the filters are analyzing disturbances emitted by the emitters and which propagate from emitter to filter? I think they do.

Does anybody know the qualitative nature of these disturbances? Not afaik. Does it make any sense to say that they don't exist? I don't think so -- and if the emitters are producing disturbances which propagate to the filters to be transmitted or not to the detectors, then the answer to the OP's question has to be NO.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing called "Bell's Paradox".

Bell's Paradox is that individual results, vis Bell, are compatible with the idea of an underlying reality, but entangled results, vis Bell, seem not to be. Afaik, I coined this usage, so don't bother looking it up.

Bell's Theorem does not say anything definite about "an underlying reality" ...

I agree. It's really irrelevant wrt the OP's question.

 

[charlylebeaugosse]

don't forget

locality=true/realism=true

and we also have superdeterminism (ie the correlations are predetermined)

Though that is too depressing to contemplate.

Once we resolve the true nature of reality, I feel these debates will seem very naive, especially if we're living in some kind of holographic construction of spacetime, with the hilbert space of QM mapping onto our perceived 3D reality in an incredibly devious manner...

Wrong: realism (+locality) is enough (and compatibility with the stats of QM): no need of determinism as in Bell 1964. To my knowledge (and apparently to Leggett's and Bernhardt as well, among others) this was first observed by Stapp who introduced an hypothesis called contrafactual definiteness, then a weaker form of realism was used by Leggett who proved it weaker than Stapp's hypothesis and by Tresser who present that as the weakest form of realism needed a Bell type theorem: value of observables are pre-existent to measurement if measurement could be made and some observable is measured. There is also something that Leggett calls microscopic realism, so three concepts at least can be used, none of which require predetermination other than what is required by realism anyway.

 

[RUTA]

The OP is asking about what's possible in reality, not what sorts of theories are possible. Your three options are about models, not reality. They don't address the OP's question.

In order to answer the OP's question we just need to answer one question: do (any) quantum experimental phenomena indicate the existence of an underlying reality? Do, say, optical Bell tests indicate that the detectors are detecting disturbances transmitted by the filters, and that the filters are analyzing disturbances emitted by the emitters and which propagate from emitter to filter? I think they do.

Does anybody know the qualitative nature of these disturbances? Not afaik. Does it make any sense to say that they don't exist? I don't think so -- and if the emitters are producing disturbances which propagate to the filters to be transmitted or not to the detectors, then the answer to the OP's question has to be NO.

The original post was simply, "Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox?" The short answer is "yes." Nonetheless, PF has generated 89 web pages of responses so far

 

[JesseM]

In order to answer the OP's question we just need to answer one question: do (any) quantum experimental phenomena indicate the existence of an underlying reality? Do, say, optical Bell tests indicate that the detectors are detecting disturbances transmitted by the filters, and that the filters are analyzing disturbances emitted by the emitters and which propagate from emitter to filter? I think they do.

Does anybody know the qualitative nature of these disturbances? Not afaik. Does it make any sense to say that they don't exist? I don't think so -- and if the emitters are producing disturbances which propagate to the filters to be transmitted or not to the detectors, then the answer to the OP's question has to be NO.

Bell's theorem logically deals with all possible "disturbances" that match the assumptions of local realism. If you assume that A) the "disturbances" are in local variables that travel along with the particle (or wave, or whatever it is that travels from source to detector), and B) these local variables are only causally influenced by events in their past light cones (so the value of variables associated with particle/wave A after passing through a filter can be influenced by properties of that filter, but not by the orientation of another filter whose orientation was chosen at a space-like separation from event of A passing through its own filter), and C) the result at one detector only depends on local variables associated with the particle/wave at the moment it reaches the detector along with local variables associated with the detector itself, then any theory involving a "disturbance" matching these conditions would satisfy Bell inequalities. The theoretical proof of this doesn't depend on the specific details of what the local variables are or how they are "disturbed", it holds for any theory which is "local realist" in the sense above.

 

[unusualname]

New Scientist have a feature article on QM this week:

Is quantum theory weird enough for the real world?

Lubos Motl has posted a slightly hysterical commentary (he mostly hates NS since it promotes climate change arguments so passionately), check out the comments section for some epr/bell related links.

A couple of journal papers linked to in the NS article are available on arXiv:

A limit on nonlocality in any world in which communication complexity is not trivial
All reversible dynamics in maximally non-local theories are trivial

 

[ThomasT]

You (tacitly) assume if and only if in premise one.

Yes, I should have stated it something like this:
EPR-type action at a distance is possible iff there's no deep reality.
Experiments suggest the existence of a deep reality, ie., that this is the most reasonable assumption.
Therefore, EPR-type action at a distance is, most reasonably, not possible.

Of course, the existence or nonexistence of a deep reality can't be proven. It can only be inferred (or not, as one might choose) from instrumental behavior.

We can ask: are the various possible answers to the OP's question equally tenable? I don't think they are. The assumption of the existence of a deep reality seems to me to be an essential part of fundamental physics.

If experiments indicated the existence of "disturbance-causing entities," I doubt Bohr, Ulfbeck, Mottelson, and Zeilinger would have claimed otherwise.

We can assume that emitters don't emit anything, filters don't filter anything, and detectors don't detect anything -- ie., that there's no deep reality that's ultimately affecting and determining instrumental results. In which case, EPR-type action at a distance would be necessary, and the answer to the OP's question would be yes.

Certainly, our interpretation would not have been accepted as a possibility by the foundations community if this was held to be true.

Are you saying that the acceptance of your interpretation by the foundations communitiy is based on a generally held assumption that instrumental behavior is not determined by the existence and behavior of a reality deeper than the instrumental level?

The original post was simply, "Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox?" The short answer is "yes."

The short answer is also "no", depending on what's inferred/assumed. Of course, the most sensible answer is "we don't know", which we might express as a "definite maybe" regarding the possible answers to the OP's question.

Nonetheless, PF has generated 89 web pages of responses so far .

Yes, isn't it awesome that there are so many interesting (more or less) considerations associated with the OP's question?

 

[ThomasT]

In order to answer the OP's question we just need to answer one question: do (any) quantum experimental phenomena indicate the existence of an underlying reality? Do, say, optical Bell tests indicate that the detectors are detecting disturbances transmitted by the filters, and that the filters are analyzing disturbances emitted by the emitters and which propagate from emitter to filter? I think they do.

Does anybody know the qualitative nature of these disturbances? Not afaik. Does it make any sense to say that they don't exist? I don't think so -- and if the emitters are producing disturbances which propagate to the filters to be transmitted or not to the detectors, then the answer to the OP's question has to be NO.

Bell's theorem logically deals with all possible "disturbances" that match the assumptions of local realism. If you assume that A) the "disturbances" are in local variables that travel along with the particle (or wave, or whatever it is that travels from source to detector), and B) these local variables are only causally influenced by events in their past light cones (so the value of variables associated with particle/wave A after passing through a filter can be influenced by properties of that filter, but not by the orientation of another filter whose orientation was chosen at a space-like separation from event of A passing through its own filter), and C) the result at one detector only depends on local variables associated with the particle/wave at the moment it reaches the detector along with local variables associated with the detector itself, then any theory involving a "disturbance" matching these conditions would satisfy Bell inequalities. The theoretical proof of this doesn't depend on the specific details of what the local variables are or how they are "disturbed", it holds for any theory which is "local realist" in the sense above.

What does this have to do with my statements that you seem to be replying to, or the OP's question?

 

[JesseM]

What does this have to do with my statements that you seem to be replying to, or the OP's question?

I would think my point was pretty obvious. Bell's theorem proves that any "realist" picture of what is going on--which presumably includes your rather concrete-sounding notion of the results being dependent on some sort of physical "disturbances"--cannot be a local one. You seemed to be saying that since we don't know the exact details of the supposed "disturbances" we can't give an affirmative answer to the OP:

Does anybody know the qualitative nature of these disturbances? Not afaik. Does it make any sense to say that they don't exist? I don't think so -- and if the emitters are producing disturbances which propagate to the filters to be transmitted or not to the detectors, then the answer to the OP's question has to be NO.

But the point is, Bell's reasoning doesn't require us to know anything specific about the "qualitative nature" of what's going on with the local hidden variables (including how they might be disturbed upon passing through a filter), it shows that all local realist theories are incompatible with QM's predictions. So, if the "disturbances" are meant to be disturbances in local realistic variables, then hell yes it "makes sense to say that they don't exist", that's exactly what Bell's theorem proves!

 

[zonde]

NO: where the interference is destructive, no photon arrives in the sense of detection, the only valuable meaning here.

The problem here is that QM does not say this.
Only thing that QM says is that no photons are detected. You have to associate detection with photon in order to say that no photons arrived at detector. But that step brings you out of orthodox QM domain.

Btw, what do you mean by realism and violation of realism? Do you mean that measurements are contextual or something else?

 

[zonde]

I would think my point was pretty obvious. Bell's theorem proves that any "realist" picture of what is going on--which presumably includes your rather concrete-sounding notion of the results being dependent on some sort of physical "disturbances"--cannot be a local one. You seemed to be saying that since we don't know the exact details of the supposed "disturbances" we can't give an affirmative answer to the OP:

But the point is, Bell's reasoning doesn't require us to know anything specific about the "qualitative nature" of what's going on with the local hidden variables (including how they might be disturbed upon passing through a filter), it shows that all local realist theories are incompatible with QM's predictions. So, if the "disturbances" are meant to be disturbances in local realistic variables, then hell yes it "makes sense to say that they don't exist", that's exactly what Bell's theorem proves!

Bell's theorem proves that any "realist" picture of what is going on cannot be a local one under hypothetical experimental conditions described in his theory.
But because this hypothetical experimental conditions are too far from reality you have to establish some correspondence between this theory and feasible real experiments. That is done by CHSH inequalities. But in order to apply CHSH inequalities to real experiments you need fair sampling assumption and before this fair sampling assumption is experimentally investigated the link between Bell's theorem and physical reality is broken and Bell's theorem has quite limited bearing on possible interpretations of physical reality.

One thing that it proves (with the help of CHSH inequalities and experiments) is that non-contextual LHVs are ruled out. But that can be inferred from HUP anyways. It's just more obvious with help of Bell.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I sometimes wish it does turn out to be as nice and simple as that, but you've got to believe that the obvious models have been dismissed for good reasons (rather like all the simple "proofs" of fermat's last theorem never worked)

Yes, you are probably right – if it were simple, it would already been solved.

But let’s at least hope it’s fairly logical and "beautiful" when completed, like when Kepler’s Mysterium Cosmographicum was explained (almost) by Newton's genius law:

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2},\

 

[DevilsAvocado]

“In the past, fundamental new discoveries have led to changes – including theoretical, technological, and conceptual changes – that could not even be imagined when the discoveries were first made. The discovery that we live in a universe that, deep down, allows for Bell-like influences strikes me as just such a fundamental, important new discovery. … If I am right about this, then we are living in a period that is in many ways like that of the early 1600s. At that time, new discoveries, such as those involving Galileo and the telescope, eventually led to an entirely new way of thinking about the sort of universe we live in. ...”

YES! This is exactly what I believe too!

I think it's an exciting time to be a physicist!

(Even as layman I) AGREE! The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades!

[PLAIN]http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kz11bcLl0r1qza4ndo1_400.jpg

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The OP is asking about what's possible in reality, not what sorts of theories are possible. Your three options are about models, not reality. They don't address the OP's question.

They don’t...??

"Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox."​

YES, action at a distance is possible as predicted by the EPR Paradox, because these are the 3 options:

• locality=true/realism=false
  
  
• locality=false/realism=true
  
  
• locality=false/realism=false

(locality=false --> action at a distance)

I could be wrong, but I thought that OP wanted us to describe the state of current professional mainstream science – not personal guessing...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The original post was simply, "Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox?" The short answer is "yes." Nonetheless, PF has generated 89 web pages of responses so far

YES!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

New Scientist have a feature article on QM this week:

Is quantum theory weird enough for the real world?

Great article!

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ird-enough-for-the-real-world.html?full=true"

...
"Quantum mechanics is, in our range of experience, a correct theory. It is sort of fine and we don't know what is better." But there are niggles that make him and others itch for something new. One is the great unfinished business of unifying quantum theory with general relativity, Einstein's resolutely classical theory of gravity. "Quantum mechanics and general relativity don't like each other," says Plenio.
...
So how do we set about finding what makes quantum theory tick? Most of the recent work has homed in on one central yet unexplained feature of quantum physics- the degree of "correlation" between the states of unconnected bodies that the theory does, or does not,
...
In 1964, John Bell of the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, described the degree of correlation that classical theories allow. Bell's result relied on two concepts: realism and locality.
...
Realism amounts to saying that the properties of an object exist prior to, and independent of, measurement. In the classical world, that second sock in my drawer is red regardless of whether or not I "measure" its state by looking at it. Locality is the assumption that these properties are independent of any remote influence.

Great description of Bell's Inequality! And in the light of this – If we look back on the hundred of posts billschnieder produced on the theme that it’s impossible to formulate a Bell Inequality – YOU GOT TO LAUGH!

Lubos Motl has posted a slightly hysterical commentary (he mostly hates NS since it promotes climate change arguments so passionately), check out the comments section for some epr/bell related links.

Hehe, "slightly" is very diplomatic... Luboš Motl seems to have several problems with the climate, girls, strange Slavic names, name of magazines... As far as I know the Czech Republic is Slavic, and Luboš Motl can be strange to some...

I wish an extremely intelligent girl, with an extremely strange name, from Bulgaria, come along and give us the new paradigm in physics – that would make both Luboš Motl & Lawrence Summers drop their jaws and fall off their chairs!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Of course, the most sensible answer is "we don't know", ...

Great TT! I’m with you all the way on this! :!)

 

[charlylebeaugosse]

The original post was simply, "Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox?" The short answer is "yes." Nonetheless, PF has generated 89 web pages of responses so far

The answer is in fact NO. No one as acted in any way on an event spatially remote. There is no good reasons to believe that what Einstein called spooky action is possible, and ALL conclusions to the contrary are based on erroneous reading of Bell, Aspect, etc... or misquotes by these people themselves. Many time people have recalled that QM is non-local and only realist interpreters need non-locality, a phenomenon with no measurable effect that cannot be interpreted more simply otherwise.