[SEQ RERUN] Bell's Theorem: No EPR "Reality"

MinibearRex

6 [SEQ RERUN] Bell's Theorem: No EPR "Reality"

25th Apr 2012

1 min read

6

Today's post, Bell's Theorem: No EPR "Reality" was originally published on 04 May 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

(Note: This post was designed to be read as a stand-alone, if desired.) Originally, the discoverers of quantum physics thought they had discovered an incomplete description of reality - that there was some deeper physical process they were missing, and this was why they couldn't predict exactly the results of quantum experiments. The math of Bell's Theorem is surprisingly simple, and we walk through it. Bell's Theorem rules out being able to locally predict a single, unique outcome of measurements - ruling out a way that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen once defined "reality". This shows how deep implicit philosophical assumptions can go. If worlds can split, so that there is no single unique outcome, then Bell's Theorem is no problem. Bell's Theorem does, however, rule out the idea that quantum physics describes our partial knowledge of a deeper physical state that could locally produce single outcomes - any such description will be inconsistent.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Entangled Photons, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

Personal Blog

6

New Comment

Rendering 0/19 comments, sorted by

top scoring

(show more) Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 7:56 AM

Moderation Log

6 [SEQ RERUN] Bell's Theorem: No EPR "Reality"

by MinibearRex

25th Apr 2012

1 min read

6

Today's post, Bell's Theorem: No EPR "Reality" was originally published on 04 May 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

(Note: This post was designed to be read as a stand-alone, if desired.) Originally, the discoverers of quantum physics thought they had discovered an incomplete description of reality - that there was some deeper physical process they were missing, and this was why they couldn't predict exactly the results of quantum experiments. The math of Bell's Theorem is surprisingly simple, and we walk through it. Bell's Theorem rules out being able to locally predict a single, unique outcome of measurements - ruling out a way that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen once defined "reality". This shows how deep implicit philosophical assumptions can go. If worlds can split, so that there is no single unique outcome, then Bell's Theorem is no problem. Bell's Theorem does, however, rule out the idea that quantum physics describes our partial knowledge of a deeper physical state that could locally produce single outcomes - any such description will be inconsistent.

Personal Blog

6

Mentioned in

6[SEQ RERUN] Spooky Action at a Distance

New Comment

Rendering 0/19 comments, sorted by

top scoring

(show more) Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 7:56 AM

Moderation Log

More from MinibearRex

Curated and popular this week

19Comments

Comment Permalink

FinalState14y-70

It's really simple. The hidden variables are not local. General Relativity does not apply in the case of the particles below a certain size. Can you create a logically consistent belief set such that the FTL particles are not FTL and really just existing in multiple states at once? Yes.

You can also say that on 4/25/12, up is down and down is up so I fell up and couldn't get back down again.

IE there are infinite labeling systems for every set of observations. The minimal set has the least computational cost to consider, and thus is easier for people to process. Some people however, tribals to be specific, are more interested in protecting legacies than they are with using the computationally cheaper belief set. The cost is reduced frequency of new inspirations of understanding.

Shmi14y50

It's really simple. The hidden variables are not local. General Relativity does not apply in the case of the particles below a certain size.

I assume that this is your personal model, given the lack of references. Feel free to flesh it out so that it makes new quantifiable testable predictions.

Some people however, tribals to be specific, are more interested in protecting legacies than they are with using the computationally cheaper belief set. The cost is reduced frequency of new inspirations of understanding.

My personal crackpot index counter clicks like mad after reading this.

6Luke_A_Somers14y

Could you unpack that a little more? It sounds like you're saying that 'some people' are unfairly discounting the possibility that QM is incomplete and locality is violated, for reasons that are not logically required . Is that accurate? If so, I would like to point out that computational cheapness is not a good prior. It's extremely computationally cheaper to believe that our solar system is the only one and the other dots are simulated, coarse-grained, on a thin shell surrounding its outside. It simplifies the universe to a mind-boggling degree for this to be the case. Indeed, we should not stop there. It is best if we get rid of the interior of the sun, the interior of the earth, the interior of every rock, trees falling in the forest, people we don't know... people we do know... and replace our interactions with them with simulacra that make stuff up and just provide enough to maintain a thin veneer of plausibility. The rule set to implement such a world is HUGE, but the data and computational complexity is enough smaller to make up for it. Don't you think?

See in context