apeiron said:
Oh please! I deliberately separated the two to make the usual point that not all the loopholes have been closed.
"Deliberately separated"...
"loopholes"... I don’t understand anything...
Honestly, if you are referring to "empirical support" and "evidence", you should at least get the most basics facts correct. How could we else be helping OP getting it right??
Bell's theorem (aka Bell's inequality) is stating that:
No physical theory of Local Hidden Variables (LHV) can ever reproduce all of the predictions of QM.
All performed EPR-Bell test experiments performed so far verifies Bell's theorem, and another word for Local Hidden Variables is
Local Realism, which by the scientific community is considered "dead" (
naturally).
This does
NOT mean that we now have
evidence that QM is not-local
and not-real. All we can say is that the predictions of QM and all experiments performed so far is telling us that the microscopic world must be non-local
AND/OR non-real.
To me, this is a HUGE difference, since nothing is really settled yet. There are still
three (3) options and the person(s) who can tell us which is correct will most probably get the Nobel Prize in Physics.
I’m not in any "camp", I’m just here to listen and learn. Furthermore I’m not a big fan of the "shut up and calculate" –model, neither can I see the use of building large "Philosophical Castles" on shaky grounds...
I must agree with ZapperZ that using logic as
1+1=2 is nothing but a catastrophe when discussing EPR-Bell and the real nature of the microscopic world.
Why!?
Because if we take the simplest version of Bell's inequality, by Nick Herbert:
N(+30°, -30°) ≤ N(+30°, 0°) + N(0°, -30°)
And reduce it, you will get:
1+1=2
This is the classical assumption we all think is "natural". But is this what QM predicts and experiments verify...??
Well, when we do the math and run the EPR-Bell test experiments, we will always find that:
1+1=3
!
...Get it...?
