On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 2:25 PM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22-11-2024 09:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > 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 assumes a deterministic local hidden variable theory. >
Which theory is that, then? > 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. > > No, non-locality is not required. > > > The conclusion drawn from these experiments is that > > quantum mechanics, itself, is non-local. > > No, that's not the conclusion. If QM were intrinsically local, then you would be able to give this local account of the correlations. You are manifestly unable to do this. > If there were any truth in what you are > saying, then you wouldn't have Sidney Coleman saying things like this: > > https://youtu.be/EtyNMlXN-sw?t=2023 > > And Prof. Marletto wouldn't have put point nr. 2 on her slide: > > https://youtu.be/DT61eSiOs50?t=299 I think it is better to rely on the mathematics rather than on so-called authorities. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLRxR-QBTqQR-DH%2BWmaAr5Dvw6MjyO%2ByDfZWzgDmqC9--w%40mail.gmail.com.
