Itoero Posted November 28, 2016 Author Posted November 28, 2016 You do not understand how strong Bell's theorem is. It is valid for any particle that behaves according QM. If it is possible to create entangled pairs, you can create Bell like situations: local variables cannot explain the correlations between measurements. (Or QM is false...)And you do not understand that the theorem states we can't explain QM with our knowledge of physics. When you shoot photons through a polarization filter or a double slit or in the bell test experiments, you measure the behavior of particles, you don't measure the cause for that behavior. Hidden variable theories and Bell inequalities are products of our knowledge and understanding of physics and math...which is what our logic is built by. Why do you think we can make valid assumptions concerning a reality we have no knowledge from? It doesn't matter if they would be made of smaller components. There is no presupposition about the precise buildup of the particles in Bell's inequalities. The only presupposition is that some attribute of the particle itself (e.g. one of its constituents, or of an attribute we not yet know of) determines what we will measure. As QM is not consistent with Bell's inequalities, we can conclude that there are no such local attributes.No, we can only conclude we can't measure local attributes at the moment. There are in your opinion no local attributes...it seems logical to you.. But why do you think you can explain anything about those locals, using your logic?
Eise Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) ... the theorem states we can't explain QM with our knowledge of physics. Please give some more or less authoritative link for this. THX Edited November 28, 2016 by Eise
Itoero Posted November 28, 2016 Author Posted November 28, 2016 Please give some more or less authoritative link for this. THXThe local hidden variable theories are a product of our knowledge of physics.
Eise Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 You said: the theorem states we can't explain QM with our knowledge of physics. I asked: Please give some more or less authoritative link for this. THX You answered: The local hidden variable theories are a product of our knowledge of physics So you give a in my eyes wrong interpretation of Bell's theorem, and if I ask you for a link that supports your interpretation, you cannot give one. I am also wondering what you mean with 'The local hidden variable theories'. Which ones? Can you name a few?
Itoero Posted November 29, 2016 Author Posted November 29, 2016 So you give a in my eyes wrong interpretation of Bell's theorem, and if I ask you for a link that supports your interpretation, you cannot give one. I am also wondering what you mean with 'The local hidden variable theories'. Which ones? Can you name a few?Those local hidden variable theories are not scientific theories. Like you very well know, many physicists argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete. They argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics. Those descriptions of "elements of reality" are the hidden variable theories...Bells inequalities show that the hidden variable theories which are considered to be local don't work. Those hidden variable theories are the best with what scientists could come up with and they obviously used their knowledge of physics to create them. This means that the hidden variable theories are a product of our knowledge of physics. Einstein was correct when he said that God does not play dice. God hates dices. (this is a joke) -3
Delta1212 Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Those local hidden variable theories are not scientific theories. Like you very well know, many physicists argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete. They argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics. Those descriptions of "elements of reality" are the hidden variable theories...Bells inequalities show that the hidden variable theories which are considered to be local don't work. Those hidden variable theories are the best with what scientists could come up with and they obviously used their knowledge of physics to create them. This means that the hidden variable theories are a product of our knowledge of physics. Einstein was correct when he said that God does not play dice. God hates dices. (this is a joke) Why do you believe that was a correct statement? Because that's how the world seems to intuitively work? But we have evidence that the way the world works based on our intuition is an emergent result of processes that do not work the way we are used to. You seem to be arguing that there must be another, deeper level that is the same as the surface level behavior. It's a bit like saying that it doesn't make sense the M&M's contain chocolate because they look and feel like hard candies, so there must be a candy center inside the chocolate that is the real M&M. 1
Eise Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 Those local hidden variable theories are not scientific theories. Again: which hidden variable theories? Name them! (But of course if there are any, they are unscientific. Because we have already proof that they cannot work. You are contradicting yourself.) Like you very well know, many physicists argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete. They argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics. Those descriptions of "elements of reality" are the hidden variable theories...Bells inequalities show that the hidden variable theories which are considered to be local don't work. Here you go again: the theories. You are fantasizing some story about the history of QM, but you fail to mention the theories. Which theories were proposed that contain local variables? Those hidden variable theories are the best with what scientists could come up with and they obviously used their knowledge of physics to create them. This means that the hidden variable theories are a product of our knowledge of physics. What a bare nonsense. Name the theories that explicitly were disproved by Bell's theorem. Who was proposing them? When and how where they refuted? Why does Bell's theorem proved these wrong? And where is the link that says that 'the theorem states we can't explain QM with our knowledge of physics'? Slowly you are beginning to look like a troll. You evade my questions, and you do not give scientific sources that support your position.
Itoero Posted November 29, 2016 Author Posted November 29, 2016 I see. I'm sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense.
Eise Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 I see. I'm sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense. Well, if you could support your ideas with reliable sources, then it would be OK, but otherwise... wise decision.
Itoero Posted November 29, 2016 Author Posted November 29, 2016 Well, if you could support your ideas with reliable sources, then it would be OK, but otherwise... wise decision.I gave reliable sources, the fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand.
Eise Posted November 29, 2016 Posted November 29, 2016 I gave reliable sources, the fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand. Reliable sources of: - Which concrete theories were refuted by Bell's theorem? - that Bell's theorem says 'the theorem states we can't explain QM with our knowledge of physics'? Please refer to the post(s) where you gave these links.
Itoero Posted November 30, 2016 Author Posted November 30, 2016 Reliable sources of: - Which concrete theories were refuted by Bell's theorem? - that Bell's theorem says 'the theorem states we can't explain QM with our knowledge of physics'? Please refer to the post(s) where you gave these links. -Those were not concrete theories. Hidden variable theories were models concerning hidden variables. Those were the best explanations concerning the incompleteness of QM that scientists could com up with. They were probably called 'theories' because it's easier to talk about. A theory does not need to have a name. Many people have pet theories...theories without a name... -When a scientist creates a theory, he uses his knowledge about a specific subject (like physics) to do that. I don't have any sources, this is just common sense. Wikipedia does explains a lot concerning hidden variables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory
Mordred Posted November 30, 2016 Posted November 30, 2016 A lot of people have ideas not theories. The majority of those pet theories aren't theories as they have zero math involved. Their ideas cannot make predictions. Which is required, another requirement being testable. Again you require mathematical predictions 2
Itoero Posted December 1, 2016 Author Posted December 1, 2016 A lot of people have ideas not theories. The majority of those pet theories aren't theories as they have zero math involved. Their ideas cannot make predictions. Which is required, another requirement being testable. Again you require mathematical predictions A theory does not have to contain math and it does not need to be able to make predictions...you describe one form of theories. I advice you to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Eise Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 -Those were not concrete theories. Hidden variable theories were models concerning hidden variables. Those were the best explanations concerning the incompleteness of QM that scientists could com up with. They were probably called 'theories' because it's easier to talk about. A theory does not need to have a name. Many people have pet theories...theories without a name... Just as I thought. I don't have any sources, this is just common sense. And here is the problem. QM does not comply to common sense. I find it OK if you have troubles with that. But it is a pity that you move to remarks as 'I provided these links already' or that I would understand little of QM and Bell's theorem,
Itoero Posted December 1, 2016 Author Posted December 1, 2016 And here is the problem. QM does not comply to common sense. I find it OK if you have troubles with that. But it is a pity that you move to remarks as 'I provided these links already' or that I would understand little of QM and Bell's theorem, My ideas concerning those theories and the fact that scientists use their knowledge about a specific subject (like physics) to create those theorie are imo common sense...that's not about QM. I never said that I provided links nor said I anything concerning your understanding of QM or the theorem.
Prometheus Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 A theory does not have to contain math and it does not need to be able to make predictions... Sure, then you may be engaged in some rational discourse, but not a scientific one.
Itoero Posted December 1, 2016 Author Posted December 1, 2016 Sure, then you may be engaged in some rational discourse, but not a scientific one.So only scientific theories are real theories?
Prometheus Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) So only scientific theories are real theories? No. I believe there are theories of ethics and aesthetics which are at least as important to humans as scientific theories. But if you are making statements about physical phenomena, rather than abstractions, then scientific theories are the only ones that are falsifiable and so the only ones with any credence. Otherwise we are free to make up any old rubbish. Without evidence why is my theory that God is the Hidden Variable behind the collapse of any wave function any worse than your theory? Edited December 1, 2016 by Prometheus
Itoero Posted December 1, 2016 Author Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) No. I believe there are theories of ethics and aesthetics which are at least as important to humans as scientific theories. But if you are making statements about physical phenomena, rather than abstractions, then scientific theories are the only ones that are falsifiable and so the only ones with any credence. Otherwise we are free to make up any old rubbish. Without evidence what's the difference between your theory of hidden variables and the parable of Eden? My 'theory' is an interpretation of science. The Parable comes out of a book... edit: Evolution theory is scientific yet it does not make predictions. Edited December 1, 2016 by Itoero
Prometheus Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 My 'theory' is an interpretation of science. The Parable comes out of a book... Sorry, i edited that while you were replying. But still, without evidence your interpretation is only as valid as mine. God is the Hidden Variable.
Itoero Posted December 1, 2016 Author Posted December 1, 2016 Sorry, i edited that while you were replying. But still, without evidence your interpretation is only as valid as mine. God is the Hidden Variable. There is no evidence but there is a lot that points to the absence of God or gods. There is no evidence but there is a lot that points to a hidden reality.
dimreepr Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 edit: Evolution theory is scientific yet it does not make predictions. It predicts lifeforms will continue to evolve.
Delta1212 Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 My 'theory' is an interpretation of science. The Parable comes out of a book... edit: Evolution theory is scientific yet it does not make predictions. It makes quite a few predictions, actually. A prediction is not "telling us something that will happen in the future." Scientific predictions are parameters that we should expect any new evidence to fall within. If you discover new evidence, or run an experiment that generates results, which does not fall within the expected range of values set by the theory, then you either need to modify the theory to account for the new information or abandon it in favor of a theory that better explains all of the available evidence should one present itself. Evolutionary theory guides our expectations about what we should and shouldn't find in the fossil record. What DNA comparisons should be able to tell us about the inter-relatedness of different species. How DNA can be used to trace population changes and migrations back through time. How different structures in different species, both some with similar purposes and some with very different purposes, should have arisen from the same source in an ancestral organism and the been adapted to different circumstances, which directs us to look for common developmental pathways. It guides out thinking on how pathogens develop new symptoms, transmission vectors and immunities to anti-biopics or vaccines. Huge swathes of the healthcare industry and pretty much all of modern biology are predicated on the predictions made by evolutionary theory. The fact that you don't know what those predictions are does not mean they do not exist. 1
Eise Posted December 1, 2016 Posted December 1, 2016 My ideas concerning those theories and the fact that scientists use their knowledge about a specific subject (like physics) to create those theorie are imo common sense...that's not about QM. What you fail to understand is that the empirically proven knowledge of physicists is that not any theory (already thought of or not) that contains local variables, hidden or not, can replicate the predictions of QM. It simply is not the case that some ideas, pet- or good theories, were falsified by Bell's theorem: any theory with local variables is ruled out definitely. Do you understand this? And if so, why do you still hold to the opposite?
Recommended Posts