Is there another workable interpretation of the Bell Inequality?

In summary, the article discusses how adding information to a fictional universe can provide a way to erase the Bell inequality.
  • #1
.Scott
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,485
1,599
TL;DR Summary
A recent article in Quantum Magazine invokes the notion that some events in our universe may be prohibited simply because they would add to the total information in a very subtle way. It seems to me that this might constitute a kind of "reason" behind Bell-Inequality-type logic.
I just read an article in Quantum Magazine about "unitary" results and how this is tied to looking at the reversibility of quantum events.

It provided an easy-to-understand mechanism for tracking the effects of adding information to a fictional universe. The example they gave for detecting a "new information" violation doesn't apply to real-world QM, but it does demonstrate how easily that "check" encoding could be maintained.

So, I wonder how the QM rules might be re-interpreted if this kind of persistent check information was kept and used in "real QM".

I think the alternate interpretation might look like this:
The Bell inequality can be erased if you presume: 1) that the set of measurements you are making is actually a selection from a larger set; and 2) that the selection is controlled by hidden variables in each particle of the entanglement. So, for example, each photon has a hidden value that is an actual angle. When the photon reaches the measurement instrument, the + or - result will be a function of the photon angle and the measurement angle. If they mostly match (+/-45 degrees) it's +1, otherwise it's -1. But, then you apply a separate rule related to the addition of information to the universe: The stronger the match (cosine of the angle), the more likely it is to exist at all - and thus the more likely it is to be tallied in the statistics. In essence, local reality is preserved because all of the information was shared long before the experiment even started. Or, alternatively, you can't create a really fair Bell Inequality experiment without adding information to the universe.

This doesn't sway my view on local reality theory because I still can't see how particles could interact at all without violating it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
.Scott said:
I think the alternate interpretation might look like this
Are you getting this from the article, or a paper referenced by it? Remember that personal speculations are off limits here at PF.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark
  • #3
In the article's attempt to reconcile gravity and particle physics, they describe a way to view adding information to the universe. And they highlight the distinctiveness of such new information. It builds on their argument that there is a way out of the paradox - though I do not fully follow their logic.

Not all "new ways of looking at something" constitute a "new interpretation" and I am uncertain whether the authors in the article have crossed the line on that point. But I am focusing on their revelation that new information can be distinctive. I'm basically asking if that notion has wings. Does anyone see this notion as having wider usefulness?

I don't think there is a way to successfully ask these kind of questions without taking a sample shot at it myself. In that sense, I suppose anyone who makes a poor attempt at solving a HW assignment has ventured into some level of speculation.

I believe I have couched my remarks in "wonder" and "think" sufficiently to make it clear that I have no confidence in my line of thinking and that I am not encouraging anyone else to take this as more than questions.

In any case, thanks for the attention. I noticed that my post attracted readers fairly quickly and that you took a long look at it before responding.

I'm not sure, but also think that I may have an item of the Math wrong - in order to make this fit, I think that "cosine" may need to be "cosine squared".

Of course, if I have crossed the PF lines, just kill the post.
Or, if it needs more citation for the Bell inequality arithmetic (or something else), I can do that too.
 
  • #4
.Scott said:
I don't think there is a way to successfully ask these kind of questions without taking a sample shot at it myself.
Yes, there is an obvious way: look at what the authors of the actual paper did. A paper is referenced in the article you linked to. Read it. And then ask questions based on what you read. That is much better than engaging in personal speculation.
 
  • #5
PeterDonis said:
Read it. And then ask questions based on what you read.
And, since this can perfectly well be done in a new thread that references the actual paper, this thread is now closed.
 

Related to Is there another workable interpretation of the Bell Inequality?

1. What is the Bell Inequality and why is it important?

The Bell Inequality, also known as Bell's theorem, is a mathematical proof that shows that certain predictions of quantum mechanics cannot be reproduced by any theory that is based on local hidden variables. This means that there is no way to explain the correlations between entangled particles using classical mechanics, and that quantum mechanics must be the correct theory to describe these phenomena. It is important because it challenges our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality and has implications for our understanding of the universe.

2. What is the current interpretation of the Bell Inequality?

The current interpretation of the Bell Inequality is that it provides strong evidence for the existence of non-locality in quantum mechanics. This means that entangled particles can influence each other instantaneously, regardless of the distance between them, which goes against our classical understanding of causality. This interpretation is supported by numerous experiments that have confirmed the predictions of quantum mechanics.

3. Is there another workable interpretation of the Bell Inequality?

Yes, there are alternative interpretations of the Bell Inequality that have been proposed by some physicists. These interpretations suggest that there may be hidden variables or mechanisms that can explain the correlations between entangled particles without resorting to non-locality. However, these interpretations are not widely accepted and have not been supported by experimental evidence.

4. What are the implications of a workable alternative interpretation of the Bell Inequality?

If a workable alternative interpretation of the Bell Inequality were to be discovered, it would have significant implications for our understanding of quantum mechanics and the fundamental nature of reality. It could potentially lead to the development of new theories or models that can better explain the behavior of entangled particles, and may even challenge the validity of quantum mechanics as the correct theory to describe the universe.

5. How can we continue to explore and test the Bell Inequality and its interpretations?

Scientists continue to explore and test the Bell Inequality and its interpretations through experiments, theoretical studies, and debates. New technologies and techniques are constantly being developed to improve our understanding and measurement of entangled particles. Additionally, collaborations and discussions among physicists from different backgrounds and perspectives can help to shed light on the complexities of the Bell Inequality and its possible interpretations.

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
723
Replies
0
Views
756
Replies
80
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
926
Replies
1
Views
952
Replies
72
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
860
Back
Top