Understanding Barandes' microscopic theory of causality

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This thread explores Barandes' microscopic theory of causality as presented in his pre-print "New Prospects for a Causally Local Formulation of Quantum Theory." The discussion focuses on the implications of Barandes' claims regarding causal locality in quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to Bell's theorem, and seeks to understand the interpretation of entanglement within this framework.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about Barandes' assertion that his theory deflates Bell's theorem, questioning how he can claim a causally local hidden-variables formulation of quantum theory.
  • Barandes distinguishes between causal locality and Bell's local causality, which raises concerns about whether he is merely restating the no-signaling theorem.
  • There is a suggestion that Barandes' interpretation could lead to a fundamentally different understanding of the universe compared to general relativity.
  • One participant notes that Barandes does not translate "entanglement" into his new framework, implying that it remains an unresolved aspect of his theory.
  • Another participant proposes that Barandes' hidden variables differ from those in Bell's theorem, suggesting a violation of the assumption of "divisibility" into an objective beable.
  • Concerns are raised about the difficulty of explaining causal locality through a Bayesian network analogy as attempted by Barandes.
  • Some participants emphasize the need for an open-minded approach to understanding Barandes' principles rather than dismissing them outright.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach consensus, with multiple competing views regarding the implications of Barandes' theory and its relationship to established concepts in quantum mechanics and relativity. The discussion remains unresolved on several key points, particularly concerning the interpretation of entanglement and the validity of Barandes' claims about causal locality.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in understanding Barandes' framework, particularly regarding the translation of established quantum concepts into his proposed language. There are unresolved questions about the implications of his theory for existing interpretations of quantum mechanics and the foundational assumptions underlying Bell's theorem.

  • #421
Morbert said:
Most interpretations require some speculative import. But iiuc you are saying this requires some additional contrivance above and beyond other interpretations and I just don't see it.

For example, while the conditional probabilities are sparse, the standalone probabilities are not, and interpreting these epistemically as about a configuration actually existing at all times seems no more burdensome than the myriad of worlds in the MWI or the exotic guiding wave nomology of Bohmian mechanics.
Sure, but the supposed philosopical contribution of the indivisible approach is compromised because you can't say it implies any novel interpretation without begging the question and presupposing that interpretation. If the formalism doesn't specify a trajectory then I can interpret it in anyway I want. Sure, the interpretation isn't refuted but the indivisible formalism doesn't actually contribute anything to or imply the interpretation by itself.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #422
iste said:
Sure, but the supposed philosopical contribution of the indivisible approach is compromised because you can't say it implies any novel interpretation without begging the question and presupposing that interpretation. If the formalism doesn't specify a trajectory then I can interpret it in anyway I want. Sure, the interpretation isn't refuted but the indivisible formalism doesn't actually contribute anything to or imply the interpretation by itself.
There's no question begging, as the interpretation, like any other interpretation, is presented as an interpretation, not a self-justifying conclusion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
4K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
13K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
  • · Replies 710 ·
24
Replies
710
Views
46K
Replies
119
Views
6K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Replies
44
Views
6K