What Interpretation/Model of QM Predicts Bell Inequality Violations ?

morrobay
Gold Member
Messages
1,116
Reaction score
1,691
Are there any modern interpretations of QM that predict the correlations in a Bell Inequality
violation ? Preferably a local non realistic model based on mechanisms.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
morrobay said:
Are there any modern interpretations of QM that predict the correlations in a Bell Inequality
violation ? Preferably a local non realistic model based on mechanisms.

Any interpretation that does not predict observed violations of the bell inequalities would immediately be rejected. Thus, all remotely serious philosophic interpretations of QM predict Bell inequality violations.
 
The "shut up calculate" interpretation perfectly describes the Bell inequality violation.
 
None. All interpretations of QM lead to the same math. The only difference is the interpretation of the math.
 
dauto said:
None. All interpretations of QM lead to the same math. The only difference is the interpretation of the math.

I think you meant "all of them"?
 
Nugatory said:
I think you meant "all of them"?

I guess so, because QM violates the inequality. I meant to say that none of them violate the results predicted by QM for the experiment proposed by Bell, which is not the same thing, granted.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...

Similar threads

Back
Top