B Is Bell's parameter really a hidden variable ?

jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
In the Ansatz : $$C(a,b)=\int A(a,s)B(b,s)ds$$, is $$s$$ not simply the mute summation index ? In this sense it is not hidden to the experiment.

Then what about an "dummy" hidden variable that is not integrated over :
$$C(a,b)(\phi)=\int A(a,s,\phi)B(b,s,\phi)ds$$

$$\phi$$ were tuned one and for all to match the predictions after all ?
 
  • Like
Likes lodbrok
Physics news on Phys.org
Whether it's hidden or not is a bit of a red herring, because the logic of Bell's theorem applies to all variables, whether hidden or not. We discuss Bell's theorem in terms of hidden variables only because the other possibility (that quantum mechanical results can be explained using unhidden variables) is already falsified because we don't see any such variables - therefore either they don't exist or they are hidden.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and Demystifier
jk22 said:
not simply the mute summation index ? In this sense it is not hidden to the experiment.
How the fact that it is a dummy summation index imply that it is not hidden?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top