Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey
I'll step in to point out (as I always do  ) that this isn't really accurate. Ken G is correct that there is no way for us to use quantum entanglement to send messages that violate causality, or anything of that sort. However, Bell's theorem demonstrates that, for the results to be consistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics and observation, the whatever underlying mechanism determines the result at A must take into account information about the choice of measurement at B, which can be arbitrarily far away, and can be outside the light cone (past or future) of measurement A. It does not require ascribing any reality at all to the electron's wave function, or treating it as anything more than a bookkeeping technique to come to that conclusion. |
I guess I'll have to step in and point out why
that isn't accurate (though I'm glad you've come around to recognizing that the whole business can be successfully viewed as a form of bookkeeping without any "reality requirements" applied to the wavefunction, that's an important rapprochement). The only remaining key point is, a scientist at A using what he/she considers to be "the wave function" of the particle at A can do quantum mechanics perfectly well, and get perfectly consistent results, publish papers, and even win Nobel prizes on the data, without having the least idea of what happened at B. In fact,
this is exactly what happens in real life! So I claim that simple observation invalidates the interpretation of Bell's theorem that says "for the results to be consistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics and observation, whatever underlying mechanism determines the result at A must take into account information about the choice of measurement at B". It's just clearly wrong, unless one places all kinds of significance in the phrase "whatever underlying mechanism determines the result at A". That's looking in the mirror and making all kinds of philosophical assumptions, science never gets to know that-- science just predicts what happens at A, and if it gets the predictions right, in a statistical sense, it is perfectly happy. That's all they do at CERN, after all.
Quote:
|
Now, it's true that Bell's theorem does rely on a couple basic assumptions; all theorems do.
|
Yes, and it all boils down to, it assumes science is something other than what it is. And we are lucky science isn't that, or we simply couldn't do it, and none of those Nobel prizes could have been earned (because they happened at A with no knowledge of B).
Quote:
|
I've given up on convincing Ken G to think other than he does after many long conversations about it; I fear that we just go around in circles, and I don't have the time to devote to it these days. However, I always feel honor bound to follow after him in these discussions, and point out that his views are not mainstream in this matter.
|
And I appreciate that, in the interests of "equal time". But I'm still right, because all I'm doing is look at what science is, and keep track of what scientists are actually doing when they build a theory like quantum mechanics. Bohr did that too-- and was largely misunderstood, in my estimation. I guess Bohr was ATM now?