I The Great Rift In Physics: The Tension Between Relativity and QM

[sahashmi]

What you mean is that all physicists should accept your philosophical worldview and devote their working lives to what they consider a pointless exercise, searching for something that they believe cannot possibly exist.

I.e. forget everything they have learned and follow the lead of someone who hasn't even bothered to learn the basics, let alone get a degree in physics?

Your arrogance is staggering. You really believe your powers of pure reason overrule every physicists who ever worked on QM? That they have precisely nothing to contribute to the debate other than accept a novice philosopher has the ultimate knowledge of physics?

Your arrogance is stupefying.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I’m just pointing out that a lot of physicists are misled by Bell’s theorem and by what it proves. Bell would agree with me. This is my opinion. You can feel free to disagree with it.

I’m not forcing a physicist to do anything. They can do what they want. If the experiments rule out a certain kind of worldview, and I point that out, that doesn’t make me arrogant. It just means I’m stating the truth.

You might as well call Bell or Tim Maudlin or David Bohm or any of the other scientists and thinkers who do have physics degrees, and objectively possess more knowledge than most people arrogant too. Their views are aligned with mine.

 

[Sambuco]

This is the spooky action at a distance that Einstein thought was happening. If he was alive, he would believe that the particles are influencing each other, since that was his alternative if his preferred theory of local hidden variables didn’t turn out to be true.

Sorry, but that's not true. Einstein believed that locality (perhaps local causation would be a more accurate description) must be true, so the evidence for this "spooky action at a distance" was, in fact, the reason he argued that QM is incomplete. This is the point of the EPR paper!
As for his preference for a hidden-variables theory, he was still alive when Bohm presented his interpretation, and Einstein didn't like it.

Lucas.

 

[PeterDonis]

Einstein believed that locality (perhaps local causation would be a more accurate description) must be true, so the evidence for this "spooky action at a distance" was, in fact, the reason he argued that QM is incomplete. This is the point of the EPR paper!

But Einstein's belief in "locality" as he defined it was wrong. That's what Bell proved. Any theory that meets Einstein's requirement of "locality" cannot violate the Bell inequalities. But nature does violate them. So whatever theory accurately describes nature, it cannot meet Einstein's "locality" requirement.

Some physicists argue for other, different definitions of "locality" than the one Einstein used, and argue that nature (and QM) satisfies those definitions. But none of that changes the fact that Einstein's version of "locality" has been ruled out by Bell's theorem and the experiments that show Bell inequality violations.

 

[PeterDonis]

I’m just pointing out that a lot of physicists are misled by Bell’s theorem and by what it proves.

You're doing more than that. The claim of yours that @PeroK quoted is that a "mechanism" must exist and we should be searching for it. He didn't put any words in your mouth; he quoted your own words directly.

 

[sahashmi]

Sorry, but that's not true. Einstein believed that locality (perhaps local causation would be a more accurate description) must be true, so the evidence for this "spooky action at a distance" was, in fact, the reason he argued that QM is incomplete. This is the point of the EPR paper!
As for his preference for a hidden-variables theory, he was still alive when Bohm presented his interpretation, and Einstein didn't like it.

Lucas.

You misread what I wrote. I said the same thing. That Einstein believed in local hidden variables.

But his EPR paper said that if local hidden variables were not true, then there must be spooky action at a distance. His preference was proven wrong. Thus, if he was alive and saw Bell’s theorem, he would believe the particles were influencing each other (whether at a distance or through Superluminal speeds).

He scoffed at “antirealists” since that position according to him was incoherent. He did not think “antirealism” was a valid option whatsoever.

 

[sahashmi]

You're doing more than that. The claim of yours that @PeroK quoted is that a "mechanism" must exist and we should be searching for it. He didn't put any words in your mouth; he quoted your own words directly.

Sure, I do think a mechanism is there and that we must search for it. But I can’t force physicists who disagree with me to do anything nor am I implying that.

John Bell until his death complained about physicists misinterpreting his theorem, and unfortunately many still do to this day. Yet even he can’t force them to do anything. He can merely state his views which is what I’m doing.

 

[jedishrfu]

Thank you @sahashmi for opening this thread. It seems there a lot of good responses and discussion going on. However, it also appears that the thread has run its course and now its time to close it.

Thanks to all who contributed.

The thread is now closed.