My arguments against Bell's theorem

[Itoero]

I don't agree with Bell's theorem.

Bell's theorem basically states that local hidden variables can't explain quantum effects,like the quantum correlation between entangled particles.

The absence of hidden variables is the absence of a cause.

 

1.If an effect like quantum correlation is not caused by hidden variables then the absence of hidden variables causes quantum correlation which means it should be present between all sub-atomic particles.

 

2.When you measure one of an entangled pair, the correlation collapses. This is only possible when hidden variables are destroyed. If nothing causes an event then you can't create or destroy it.

 

3.Hidden variables are like a hidden reality or other dimension. You can't disprove a reality you can't define. The only thing that's proven is that our knowledge and technology shoots short to find or understand hidden variables which cause quantum effects.

 

What do you think about those 3 points?

 

The order we see in the universe proves (causal) determinism.

[Strange]

I don't agree with Bell's theorem.

 

 

As it is a mathematical theorem, perhaps you can show where the error in the maths is?

 

And, if the mathematics iOS correct, then perhaps you can explain why experiment is consistent with Bell's inequality?

 

Bell's theorem basically states that local hidden variables can't explain quantum effects,like the quantum correlation between entangled particles.

The absence of hidden variables is the absence of a cause.

 

It is only absence of one particular cause.

 

 

 

1.If an effect like quantum correlation is not caused by hidden variables then the absence of hidden variables causes quantum correlation which means it should be present between all sub-atomic particles.

 

Or the correlation is caused by something else.

 

 

 

2.When you measure one of an entangled pair, the correlation collapses. This is only possible when hidden variables are destroyed. If nothing causes an event then you can't create or destroy it.

 

As hidden variables are not the cause that doesn't seem relevant.

 

 

 

3.Hidden variables are like a hidden reality or other dimension.

 

Not really. Hidden variables means things like the spins of two particles being determined when they are created. Or the correlation being caused by the transmission of information from one to the other.

 

Basically, Bell's theorem shows that the observed results cannot be caused by a locally realistic theory.

 

 

 

You can't disprove a reality you can't define.

 

Bell's inequality is true for any type of hidden variable (local, realistic) solution.

 

 

 

The only thing that's proven is that our knowledge and technology shoots short to find or understand hidden variables which cause quantum effects.

 

Or that you don't need hidden variables and our current explanation works fine.

 

 

The order we see in the universe proves (causal) determinism.

 

For things where cause and effect is involved, it certainly seems to be the case that cause must precede effect. But there are, of course, cases where things don't have a cause.

[imatfaal]

There are two threads in speculations (started by Lazarus) where other members and I have explained the maths and SwansonT and others have explained the physics - the maths is remarkably simple and the physics is not too tough if you can accept some limit to your understanding and take some things on trust (which until you have finished your grad school course on QM you will have to).

For your further guidance, you must be careful in your choice of what Bell's we are talking about

 

Bell's Inequality is a mathematically provable piece of work , Bell's Theorem is the connection between this Statistical feature and Experimentation, and the Bell's Experiments are the testing of this theorem. To date, the huge majority of evidence from the experiments is in line with the Theorem, but as always in science, it is still being rigorously tested and holes are still being plugged. You can only argue against a Theorem based in experimental evidence by even more evidence or showing that the evidence does not lead to the theorem; that's a tough ask.

[Itoero]

Bell's Inequality is a mathematically provable piece of work , Bell's Theorem is the connection between this Statistical feature and Experimentation, and the Bell's Experiments are the testing of this theorem. To date, the huge majority of evidence from the experiments is in line with the Theorem, but as always in science, it is still being rigorously tested and holes are still being plugged. You can only argue against a Theorem based in experimental evidence by even more evidence or showing that the evidence does not lead to the theorem; that's a tough ask.

Thanks for the explanation.

The theorem states quantum effects can't be explained by local hidden variable theories.

If evidence of experiments is in line with the theorem, doesn't that show that our knowledge/technology did not evolve enough to explain hidden variables on a quantum level?

 

As it is a mathematical theorem, perhaps you can show where the error in the maths is?

 

And, if the mathematics iOS correct, then perhaps you can explain why experiment is consistent with Bell's inequality?

I'm talking about the theorem, not the inequalities.

It is only absence of one particular cause.

 

 

Or the correlation is caused by something else.

 

 

As hidden variables are not the cause that doesn't seem relevant.

 

 

Not really. Hidden variables means things like the spins of two particles being determined when they are created. Or the correlation being caused by the transmission of information from one to the other.

A hidden variable is any factor which is unmeasurable/unobservable and influences your measurement.

How can anything else then hidden variables cause correlation?

That's impossible, it's very well known that correlation does not imply causation. The transmission of information is a property of quantum teleportation.

Basically, Bell's theorem shows that the observed results cannot be caused by a locally realistic theory.

Which means our knowledge/technology shoots short.

 

Or that you don't need hidden variables and our current explanation works fine.

There is no explanation, that's what the theorem states.

For things where cause and effect is involved, it certainly seems to be the case that cause must precede effect. But there are, of course, cases where things don't have a cause.

Can you give an example of things which don't have a cause?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Strange]

How can anything else then hidden variables cause correlation?

 

 

The cause is non-locality. The fact that the entangled particles are a single system, described by a single wave function.

 

 

 

Can you give an example of things which don't have a cause?

 

Decay of fundamental particles is an obvious one.

 

The usual response to this, by people who think everything must have a cause, is that there must be a cause but we don't know what it is yet. why must there be a cause? Because everything has a cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[swansont]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We have evidence, though. Experiments have been run. They confirm that there are no local hidden variables.

 

I don't see how you get to "disagree" with this. You have no contradictory evidence to offer. The experiments that confirmed it did not suffer from a lack of tehnological capability. Better experiments won't reverse the result.

[Tim88]

Thanks for the explanation.

The theorem states quantum effects can't be explained by local hidden variable theories.

If evidence of experiments is in line with the theorem, doesn't that show that our knowledge/technology did not evolve enough to explain hidden variables on a quantum level?

 

I'm talking about the theorem, not the inequalities.

[..]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

I think that you're on the right track. The inequalities are based on shaky assumptions as Jaynes showed - http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-7860-8_1? [edit: you can also find it at ref.66 of http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/node1.html ]

 

In any case, experiments that supposedly proved non-locality or "non-reality" were subsequently successfully simulated with local realistic variables, see for example De Raedt's latest paper on that topic - https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05237v1 .

See also the physics FAQ, especially the last paragraph which is independent of later experimental progress:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html

Edited November 11, 2016 by Tim88

[Itoero]

The cause is non-locality. The fact that the entangled particles are a single system, described by a single wave function.

Hidden variables can be non-local.

 

Decay of fundamental particles is an obvious one.

Particle decay has a pretty logic explanation I think. Particles are open systems and lose energy to its environment. Particles want to be in the lowest possible energy state they can reach. This is evolution on a quantum level.

The usual response to this, by people who think everything must have a cause, is that there must be a cause but we don't know what it is yet. why must there be a cause? Because everything has a cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

If an effect or event is not caused by anything then it's not adjusted/adapted to the properties of its environment. How is that possible?

 

We have evidence, though. Experiments have been run. They confirm that there are no local hidden variables.

 

I don't see how you get to "disagree" with this. You have no contradictory evidence to offer. The experiments that confirmed it did not suffer from a lack of tehnological capability. Better experiments won't reverse the result.

If experiments show there are no local hidden variables that doesn't prove in any way that there are no local hidden variables. If our knowledge/technology shoots short then every experiment will show there are no hidden variables...even when there are local hidden variables. Our knowledge/technology looks very evolved but that does not prove we can explain quantum effects.

If there are no local hidden variables then something like quantum teleportation should not be possible...when you add a classical channel.

It seems that entanglement holds DNA together. This is not possible without local hidden variables.

[Eise]

Hidden variables can be non-local.

 

Of course, that is possible. But I would say that non-locality is just as 'spooky' as uncaused events.

 

Particle decay has a pretty logic explanation I think. Particles are open systems and lose energy to its environment. Particles want to be in the lowest possible energy state they can reach. This is evolution on a quantum level.

 

No, no, that does not work. If decaying particles were just 'leaking energy' continuously, all decays of a certain kind (e.g. muons) would take just as long. We would not have a halflife, but an exact lifetime, the same for all muons. But we know that is not the case. But of course a decaying muon is not an example of non-locality.

 

If an effect or event is not caused by anything then it's not adjusted/adapted to the properties of its environment. How is that possible?

 

You made this error already our discussion in the philosophy section. QM events are caused, but not exactly. A bit of indeterminism does not drop all relations with properties of the environment, it does so only a tiny bit. Why do you think it is difficult to realise Bell experiments?

 

If experiments show there are no local hidden variables that doesn't prove in any way that there are no local hidden variables. If our knowledge/technology shoots short then every experiment will show there are no hidden variables...even when there are local hidden variables. Our knowledge/technology looks very evolved but that does not prove we can explain quantum effects.

 

You do not seem to understand the character of Bell's theorem. In Bell-like experiments, it is not so that we cannot measure precise enough. Bell's theorem states that no local variable theory can reproduce the predictions of QM. So what we must do is setup situations in which QM predicts something that does not fit Bell's inequality. These experiments have been done, and QM's predictions are right. That proves that local variables (hidden or not) do not play a role.

 

If there are no local hidden variables then something like quantum teleportation should not be possible...when you add a classical channel.

It seems that entanglement holds DNA together. This is not possible without local hidden variables.

 

I am wondering what exactly your viewpoint is: is causality in your view 'saved' by non-local causes, or by hidden local variables? You use both in your arguments.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

No, no, that does not work. If decaying particles were just 'leaking energy' continuously, all decays of a certain kind (e.g. muons) would take just as long. We would not have a halflife, but an exact lifetime, the same for all muons. But we know that is not the case. But of course a decaying muon is not an example of non-locality.

I think there is a lot that influences particle decay which gives an indeterministic look.

 

"As an example, a neutron is slightly heavier than a proton, so it has slightly more energy than the latter. It turns out that left alone, a free neutron (one that isn't bound in a nucleus) will spontaneously decay into a proton, and electron and a neutrino (this is called "beta decay"). The characteristic time for the decay to occur is about 15 minutes."

 

You made this error already our discussion in the philosophy section. QM events are caused, but not exactly. A bit of indeterminism does not drop all relations with properties of the environment, it does so only a tiny bit. Why do you think it is difficult to realise Bell experiments?

Ok, but it was a reaction on somethings Strange said. I just don't think there is indeterminism. It's like with the particle decay, many causes or a single unknown cause can give an indeterministic look to something.

 

You do not seem to understand the character of Bell's theorem. In Bell-like experiments, it is not so that we cannot measure precise enough. Bell's theorem states that no local variable theory can reproduce the predictions of QM. So what we must do is setup situations in which QM predicts something that does not fit Bell's inequality. These experiments have been done, and QM's predictions are right. That proves that local variables (hidden or not) do not play a role.

Still, if the measurements are not precise enough...we can't know.

I agree with Bell's theorem which states that no local variable theory can reproduce the predictions of QM. But I don't agree with the absence of local hidden variables.

Can you give an example of such an experiment?

I am wondering what exactly your viewpoint is: is causality in your view 'saved' by non-local causes, or by hidden local variables? You use both in your arguments.

I think non-local variables and local hidden variable form one variable.

[Strange]

Hidden variables can be non-local.

 

 

The reason that EPR said there must be hidden variables is because they could not accept non-local (i.e. faster than light) interactions. Allowing faster than light hidden variables doesn't really solve the problem. (Of course, there isn't really a problem at all; it was just that EPR, and you, have an emotional dislike of the nature of the universe. As Feynman said, if you don't like the way this universe works, find another one.)

 

 

 

Particle decay has a pretty logic explanation I think. Particles are open systems and lose energy to its environment. Particles want to be in the lowest possible energy state they can reach. This is evolution on a quantum level.

 

Wanting to be in a lower energy state is what allows particles to decay but it is not a cause. Neither can they lose energy (because they are quantised.

 

If a muon, for example, sits there for a few microseconds and then, at some point, decays there is nothing that caused it to decay. It just happened.

 

 

 

If an effect or event is not caused by anything then it's not adjusted/adapted to the properties of its environment.

 

What does that mean and what is the evidence for it?

 

 

 

If there are no local hidden variables then something like quantum teleportation should not be possible...

 

As quantum teleportation is based on a theory with no hidden variables then this seems like a baseless assertion.

 

Can you provide any theoretical justification or references to support this claim?

 

 

 

It seems that entanglement holds DNA together. This is not possible without local hidden variables.

 

Why is this not possible?

 

Can you provide any theoretical justification or references to support this claim?

 

 

Ok, but it was a reaction on somethings Strange said. I just don't think there is indeterminism. It's like with the particle decay, many causes or a single unknown cause can give an indeterministic look to something.

 

That is very vague. As there are no known causes, it sounds like you are just wishing that there were several that somehow made things look random. Wishful thinking is not science.

[Eise]

I think there is a lot that influences particle decay which gives an indeterministic look.

 

You can think that, but no such influences are found. So at this moment you only express a belief, not grounded in any science.

 

"As an example, a neutron is slightly heavier than a proton, so it has slightly more energy than the latter. It turns out that left alone, a free neutron (one that isn't bound in a nucleus) will spontaneously decay into a proton, and electron and a neutrino (this is called "beta decay"). The characteristic time for the decay to occur is about 15 minutes."

 

Eh, yes? And what? Just translate correctly 'characteristic time' with 'half life', and it really is mainstream science. Note the use of the word 'spontaneously', which in this context means, 'having no cause'.

 

It's like with the particle decay, many causes or a single unknown cause can give an indeterministic look to something.

 

Same as above: there is no empirical proof of such a cause, or causes. There are only strong arguments for the opposite. Do not forget: QT works. And really, as Strange already noticed: you think there must be causes, because you believe determinism must be true (begging the question). But until now you have not given any convincing argument, except misinterpretations of Bell-like experiments.

 

Still, if the measurements are not precise enough...we can't know.

 

Pure formally, you might be right. But it is a mathematical fact that that QM violates Bell's inequality. And all empirical experiments point to the fact that QM's predictions are correct.

 

Of course you have heard about the 'loopholes'. But they are closed more and more. See e.g. here.

 

I agree with Bell's theorem which states that no local variable theory can reproduce the predictions of QM. But I don't agree with the absence of local hidden variables.

 

In the light of the empirical evidence, you are inconsistent here. Or you believe that QM is wrong.

 

Can you give an example of such an experiment?

 

Given above.

 

I think non-local variables and local hidden variable form one variable.

 

This is vague as vague can be. Unless you come with a mathematical description, that can be tested empirically, you have nothing more than your belief that determinism must be true.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Eise

[swansont]

If experiments show there are no local hidden variables that doesn't prove in any way that there are no local hidden variables. If our knowledge/technology shoots short then every experiment will show there are no hidden variables...even when there are local hidden variables. Our knowledge/technology looks very evolved but that does not prove we can explain quantum effects.

The logical extension of this is that we can't prove that things are attracted by gravity because some advanced technology hasn't been invented yet. Which is ridiculous. Better technology gets you past the current limits of experiment, but these experiments were not limited by the technology.

 

If there are no local hidden variables then something like quantum teleportation should not be possible...when you add a classical channel.

I fail to see why this would be true. Quantum teleportation is perfectly consistent with QM.

 

It seems that entanglement holds DNA together. This is not possible without local hidden variables.

Citation needed for the former, and justification for the latter. I'm pretty sure that chemical bonds hold DNA together.

[Itoero]

The reason that EPR said there must be hidden variables is because they could not accept non-local (i.e. faster than light) interactions. Allowing faster than light hidden variables doesn't really solve the problem. (Of course, there isn't really a problem at all; it was just that EPR, and you, have an emotional dislike of the nature of the universe. As Feynman said, if you don't like the way this universe works, find another one.)

The absence of local hidden variables means there is nothing physical relating the entangled particles.

Then those are separate particles.

If entanglement holds DNA together then there must be some force between entangled particles, which is only possible with local hidden variables. Our knowledge and technology imo shoots way to short to explain the nature of the universe.

It's like something Bohr said:

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature. "

Those hidden variables are not there because people say they are not there. It's impossible to know if our science is sufficient to explain quantum effects.

 

What does that mean and what is the evidence for it?

Evolution is the evidence. In some way evolution is driven by quantum effects. If an even is not caused by anything then it's not adapted to the properties of its environment, which means for example that the spin of a particle is not caused by the properties of the particle. Then we shouldn't be able to define particles, based on their spin.

 

 

Same as above: there is no empirical proof of such a cause, or causes. There are only strong arguments for the opposite. Do not forget: QT works. And really, as Strange already noticed: you think there must be causes, because you believe determinism must be true (begging the question). But until now you have not given any convincing argument, except misinterpretations of Bell-like experiments.

There is also no empirical proof for the absence of such a cause. I don't understand why 'absence of evidence is not evidence for absence' does not count when you study the nature of the universe. If the problem is that our science shoots short to explain hidden variables then no amount of experiments and calculations proof anything.

If nothing causes quantum effects then there shouldn't be order in the universe. Order demands that every action is a reaction to something else. Order demands determinism.

 

The logical extension of this is that we can't prove that things are attracted by gravity because some advanced technology hasn't been invented yet. Which is ridiculous. Better technology gets you past the current limits of experiment, but these experiments were not limited by the technology.

Ok, but gravity is there because of evidence. Local hidden variables are supposedly not there because the absence of evidence. You can't prove a negative.

I fail to see why this would be true. Quantum teleportation is perfectly consistent with QM.

 

Citation needed for the former, and justification for the latter. I'm pretty sure that chemical bonds hold DNA together.

It seems that entanglement keeps DNA together.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5342

 

Quantum teleportation needs a quantum channel and classical channel. If there are no local hidden variables then there is no quantum channel between the particles. A channel demands something physical.

[Strange]

The absence of local hidden variables means there is nothing physical relating the entangled particles.

 

 

What do you mean by "nothing physical"? They are entangled and therefore related by something physical (a wave function). How are undetectable hidden variables that are contradicted by data more "physical" than the reality of entangled particles?

 

 

 

Then those are separate particles.

 

They are effectively a single particle. That is what "entangled" means.

 

 

 

If entanglement holds DNA together then there must be some force between entangled particles, which is only possible with local hidden variables.

 

1. Entanglement doesn't hold DNA together.

 

2. Even if it did, there is no reason to insist that requires hidden variables. If entanglement plays a role in the function of DNA then that understanding is based on current theory which does not need hidden variables. Simply repeating your belief doesn't make it magically come true.

 

 

 

It's impossible to know if our science is sufficient to explain quantum effects.

 

So far it seems to do OK. You have presented no evidence that current theory doesn't work.

 

 

 

If nothing causes quantum effects then there shouldn't be order in the universe. Order demands that every action is a reaction to something else. Order demands determinism.

 

That is just a statement of your opinion / belief. There is no science behind it.

 

 

 

Local hidden variables are supposedly not there because the absence of evidence.

 

There is evidence that hidden variable cannot exist.

 

 

 

It seems that entanglement keeps DNA together.

 

The two papers you link to do not say anything like that. A pop-sic article does but admits it is completely speculative with no proof.

 

 

 

Quantum teleportation needs a quantum channel and classical channel. If there are no local hidden variables then there is no quantum channel between the particles. A channel demands something physical.

 

Again, this is explained by current theory (without hidden variables). So this is, again, just a statement of your opinion / belief. There is no science behind it.

[Eise]

There is also no empirical proof for the absence of such a cause. I don't understand why 'absence of evidence is not evidence for absence' does not count when you study the nature of the universe. If the problem is that our science shoots short to explain hidden variables then no amount of experiments and calculations proof anything.

 

But there is empirical proof! Why do you repeat this over and over again? QM's predictions violate the Bell inequalities. QM's predictions turn out to be correct. Bell's theorem says that no theory based on local (hidden) variables can reproduce QM's predictions. So it is proven there are no local hidden variables.

 

You behave as a trisector who does not understand the difference between 'nobody has found a method to trisect an angle' and 'there is mathematical proof that trisection of an angel is impossible'.

 

Your argument 'absence of evidence is not evidence for absence' is not valid: there is evidence for absence!

 

If nothing causes quantum effects then there shouldn't be order in the universe. Order demands that every action is a reaction to something else. Order demands determinism.

 

Again: repeating the same argument over and over again does not make it more true. According to QM there is enough order to explain the order of the universe. The 'uncaused' events average out to a for nearly all practical, daily purposes determined universe. Why do you think did it took so long in our history of science that this statistical behaviour of matter was discovered? Because we do not notice it in our daily life

 

[imatfaal]

 

But there is empirical proof! Why do you repeat this over and over again? QM's predictions violate the Bell inequalities. QM's predictions turn out to be correct. Bell's theorem says that no theory based on local (hidden) variables can reproduce QM's predictions. So it is proven there are no local hidden variables.

 

You behave as a trisector who does not understand the difference between 'nobody has found a method to trisect an angle' and 'there is mathematical proof that trisection of an angel is impossible'.

 

Your argument 'absence of evidence is not evidence for absence' is not valid: there is evidence for absence!

 

 

Again: repeating the same argument over and over again does not make it more true. According to QM there is enough order to explain the order of the universe. The 'uncaused' events average out to a for nearly all practical, daily purposes determined universe. Why do you think did it took so long in our history of science that this statistical behaviour of matter was discovered? Because we do not notice it in our daily life

 

 

Love the analogy with trisection. One tiny quibble is that there are still tiny lacunae which experimentalists have not yet closed - the experiments to prove Bell's Theorem starting from Aspect and moving onwards have covered nearly every possibility; but, physics being physics, every so often someone comes up with an even more outlandish scenario which might allow a tiny bit of locality within the predictions of qm. I am not sure if all the loopholes have been closed - and more importantly if everyone agrees that they have. I have just glanced at scholarpedia on the subject and they don't mention any loopholes so maybe I am misremembering.

 

 

...'there is mathematical proof that trisection of an angel is impossible'.

 

Would you trisect an angel so that you can use fractional angels when counting how many go on the head of a pin?

[swansont]

Love the analogy with trisection. One tiny quibble is that there are still tiny lacunae which experimentalists have not yet closed - the experiments to prove Bell's Theorem starting from Aspect and moving onwards have covered nearly every possibility; but, physics being physics, every so often someone comes up with an even more outlandish scenario which might allow a tiny bit of locality within the predictions of qm. I am not sure if all the loopholes have been closed - and more importantly if everyone agrees that they have. I have just glanced at scholarpedia on the subject and they don't mention any loopholes so maybe I am misremembering.

OTOH "There is no experimental evidence" is a far cry from discussing the minutiae of a possible loophole.

[imatfaal]

OTOH "There is no experimental evidence" is a far cry from discussing the minutiae of a possible loophole.

 

Yes indeed. Maybe even "tiny quibble" was too strong a phrase! And frankly it was at Scholarpedia that I thought I remembered reading about the possible loopholes and I cannot see that section now. Wikipedia has a section - but then it would.

 

And following up references

 

Here we report a Bell experiment that is free of any such additional assumption and thus directly tests the principles underlying Bell’s inequality....A null-hypothesis test yields a probability of at most P = 0.039 that a local-realist model for space-like separated sites could produce data with a violation at least as large as we observe, even when allowing for memory

 

from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/full/nature15759.html

 

And following up that experiment with a larger number of trials

 

 

Here, we report a Bell test that closes the most significant of these loopholes simultaneously. Using a well-optimized source of entangled photons, rapid setting generation, and highly efficient superconducting detectors, we observe a violation of a Bell inequality with high statistical significance. The purely statistical probability of our results to occur under local realism does not exceed 3.74*10-31, corresponding to an 11.5 standard deviation effect.

 

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401

 

So tiny quibble has become a few chances in a quadrillion quintillion

and finally a nice review of the most upto date ideas by the original experimenter Alain Aspect

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/123