On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 7:05 PM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22-11-2024 06:40, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > That's what is ruled out by violation of Bell's inequality. > > Bells' theorem doesn't apply to QM,
I think it is about time that you read Bell's papers. His theorem is not about hidden variable theories, or non-local theories. He assumes, for the purposes of argument, a local theory. He then derives a series of inequalities that such a local theory must satisfy. Experimentally, these inequalities are violated. Inspection of standard QM gives results that agree with experiment, but these results also require non-locality. The conclusion drawn from these experiments is that quantum mechanics, itself, is non-local. Bruce it's a theorem about deterministic > hidden variable theories that says that certain correlations like some > of those of QM cannot be reproduced by any local hidden variable theory. > The relevance of Bell's theorem to QM is only that it rules out that if > QM is not fundamental and has an underlying hidden variable theory, then > that hidden variable theory cannot be local. > > So, if we then assume that QM is fundamental, then there is no objection > against QM being local. Getting to non-local states via local dynamics > isn't a problem as this is routinely done in experiments where entangled > spin pairs are created. Nothing non-local goes on as far as the dynamics > is concerned in such experiments. > > Saibal > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSnUQidupJt2NoU7pEVyTsvptAihTNLf2dmHmSzoL03yw%40mail.gmail.com.
