User:Gill110951/Bell theorem opposition

Bell theorem opposition

There continues to be lively debate on the meaning and the correctness of Bell’s theorem. To some extent, this debate continues outside of “establishment science”; but also within established academia, there exists a vocal minority who disagree with the general consensus in the physics community that the early debates between Einstein and Bohr were concluded in Bohr’s favour. Unfortunately, the disagreements inside this minority are extremely large, too [cite Karl Hess on this].

There are two main ways to “get around” Bell’s theorem. The most radical is to suggest that there are mistakes in common proofs of the theorem, or even that the violation of Bell’s inequality in experiments actually points to failings in usually accepted mathematics or logic [e.g. Itamar Pitowski]. Less radical is to exploit some alternatives which were already explicitly discussed by Bell in his many papers over the years: “superdeterminism”, and “retrocausality”. Superdeterminism is presently (2020) being championed by Sabine Hossenfelder, Tim Palmer, and for quite a few years has been supported by Gerard ‘t Hooft. Retrocausality has champions in Leifer and Pusey, Jarek Duda, and others.

The theorem is commonly supposed to say that quantum mechanics is incompatible with locality and realism, but a third condition, sometimes denoted freedom, sometimes no-conspiracy, is often added by many writers. Superdeterminism, and retrocausality, imply that experimenters do *not* have the freedom to choose experimental parameters freely. Other scientists reject locality. Finally, there is a possibility to reject realism. According to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the branching of possibilities allegedly occurring when quantum measurements are made is an illusion. All possibilities co-exist. Another radical way to avoid realism is QBism, according to which physics merely tells a subject what the probabilities will be of future experiences. The question of whether or not there is an objective reality out there is thought to be irrelevant.

The terminology itself is also hotly debated. The word “conspiracy” is objectionable, since pejorative. Example: QBism is solipsistic, but solipsism is itself a pejorative word.

A fundamental question is what is meant by “understand”. For some, to understand just means to be able to calculate and predict. To others, it means having expressed something in terms of fundamental intuitive concepts. Neurolinguistics has the notion of “systems of core knowledge”, standing for knowledge in our brains about the world which has been built-in by evolution, and which needs to be there in order to interpret experience and acquire knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gill110951/Joy_Christian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hess_(scientist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#The_paradox (Redirect from “local realism” ! This seems to me to be the result of vandalism in the past)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Palmer_(physicist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%E2%80%98t_Hooft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foundations

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-1008-4 Sandro Donadi et al. experiment testing some non-local gravity induced collapse theories

Plan for further organisation of this page: separate:

Bell's theorem: mathematical objections

Bell's theorem: physical objections

Bell's theorem: philosophical objections

Some often publishing authors with objections: Theo Nieuwenhuizen; Marian Kupczynski; Karl Hess

[I list people who do publish in peer-reviewed journals on the foundations of quantum mechanics and who are academics. This is not to belittle the others. Their work has impact too. Published criticism of the above-mentioned authors should be cited too.]