# I Is Bell's Ansatz reasonable?

1. Jun 5, 2016

### jk22

Bell writes for the result of measurement in A $$A (\theta_A,\lambda)$$.

It is said lambda could be any parameter.

I would like to interprete lambda and thought of two possibilities :

-$$\lambda=\phi$$ the angle of polarization of the photon arriving at A. This seems reasonable

-since lambda could be any parameter it could be : the coordinate of the universe in which result is A for the measurement setting given. Hence a many-worlds view.

Thus can we deduce from Bell theorem that if one wants to reproduce quantum results with MWI it should still use nonlocal formulas ? Hence MWI does not solve the nonlocality issue ?

2. Jun 5, 2016

### Staff: Mentor

It's not clear what you mean by "solve the non-locality issue". It is a fact that the predictions of quantum mechanics cannot be explained by any non-local and realistic theory, but that doesn't mean that there's any "issue" to "solve". It means that if we believe the experiments that support the predictions of quantum mechanics we don't have to spend time considering hypothetical local realistic theories to explain QM.

All interpretations make the same predictions, so no interpretation can either explain or eliminate non-locality. All you can ever get from an interpretation is a more-or-less palatable way of thinking about the mathematical machinery that makes these predictions.

3. Jun 6, 2016

### Demystifier

Would you say that non-locality is a prediction or an interpretation?
I think there is no true consensus among experts.

4. Jun 6, 2016

5. Jun 8, 2016

### Jilang

Reading the paper it appears that locality is preserved (since the measurement information must be transferred at c or less). However it is not still at the expense of reality?