New experimental support for pilot wave theory?

[Demystifier]

But I was keen to see your "tedious mathematical slog" to learn if you thought non-locality (NL) was anywhere involved. From your other recent comments here, I take it that you (like me) are not in Demystifier's camp when it comes to NL being involved in Bell's (1964) equation (3)? I'm OK with that.

So you don't agree with my post #38? May I know why?

 

[Demystifier]

In so far as our quantum world is concerned, there is an unrealistic assumption in Bell's (1964) theorem; i.e., the attribution of classicality (via λ) to quantum objects.

But Bell's $\lambda$ is equivalent to my C in post #28. Any yet, you said that my C is OK for you. So you are not being consistent.

 

[bhobba]

Isn't that what Bell was trying to prove? That QM is inconsistent with certain classical assumptions?

Indeed.

What I don't understand is why he is looking at Bells original paper. Dr Chinese's write up is much simpler:
http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

Once that is understood then you can look at more advanced treatments.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Demystifier]

What I don't understand is why he is looking at Bells original paper. Dr Chinese's write up is much simpler:

He wants to prove that mainstream understanding is wrong. For that purpose it is much more cool to prove that Bell was wrong than to prove that Dr Chinese is wrong.

Similarly, people who want to prove that theory of relativity is wrong often look at Einstein's original papers. Physicists who accept theory of relativity rarely look at Einstein's original papers.

 

[Demystifier]

Isn't that what Bell was trying to prove? That QM is inconsistent with certain classical assumptions?

It looks as if some people don't understand the concept of reductio ad absurdum, i.e. making correct conclusion by taking a false assumption.

 

[naima]

I read the elegant paper of Dr Chinese.
Have hidden variables to give outputs to not measured things?
I think that it would be enough if they could predict them for all measurements actually done.

 

[Ilja]

About $P(a,b)=\int d\lambda f(\lambda)P(a,b,\lambda)$:

. The second equation cannot be false, because it is one of the basic general laws in the theory of probability.

Not exactly, it contains the assumption that there is no superdeterminisms. Else, this could be $P(a,b)=\int d\lambda f(a,b,\lambda)P(a,b,\lambda)$

 

[Ilja]

Have hidden variables to give outputs to not measured things?
I think that it would be enough if they could predict them for all measurements actually done.

It is, indeed, enough. And in particular dBB theory does not define outputs to not measured things. Except for positions. But for everything else, the "measurement result", even if it is defined in a deterministic way, depends also on the unknown position of the "measurement device". So, without measurement being done there is also no hidden state of the "measurement device", and, therefore, no predicted output.

This property is known as contextuality.

 

[Demystifier]

About $P(a,b)=\int d\lambda f(\lambda)P(a,b,\lambda)$:

Not exactly, it contains the assumption that there is no superdeterminisms. Else, this could be $P(a,b)=\int d\lambda f(a,b,\lambda)P(a,b,\lambda)$

Interesting! Is there a reference for that, or is it your own conclusion?

 

[Ilja]

No, this is my own remark. But it seems quite trivial. That superdeterminism means that the preparation is allowed to know in advance what will be decided by the experimenters is clear. Their decisions what to measure are a and b. Superdeterminism would allow the probability distribution of the hidden variables to depend on a and b. And with this additional possibility you would be unable to proof the theorem.