4 replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

My problem with a positive answer would be that some local rule cellular automaton are Turing universal, which would imply that entanglement could be simulated by a model that uses a classical local rule. This seems wrong, doesn't it?

There is a classical, local, deterministic and realistic equivalent of QM, called bohmian mechanics. And no, it is NOT non-local, e.g. supports instantanious actions. Bell's locality condition is just non-sense. See this LinkLink.

There is a nice playlist on youtube considering this topic: https://youtu.be/_6TNF854Xmo?list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m

Also, currently there are experiments done that support this interpretation of QM: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

Furthermore there is a deep correspondance between classical statistical mechanics and the operator formulation of QM via Koopman-von-Neumann classical (statistical) mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_classical_mechanics

Strictly speaking, the only difference between usual classical (statistical) mechanics and QM is the fact that the particle's position and its momentum do not commute, that is a measurment on the former can change the later and vice versa. In ordinary classical mechanics this fact is blurred because one always interacts with heavy objects, for which this change is negligible.

My problem with a positive answer would be that some local rule cellular automaton are Turing universal, which would imply that entanglement could be simulated by a model that uses a classical local rule. This seems wrong, doesn't it?

There is a classical, local, deterministic and realistic equivalent of QM, called bohmian mechanics. And no, it is NOT non-local, e.g. supports instantanious actions. Bell's locality condition is just non-sense. See this Link.

There is a nice playlist on youtube considering this topic: https://youtu.be/_6TNF854Xmo?list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m

Also, currently there are experiments done that support this interpretation of QM: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

Furthermore there is a deep correspondance between classical statistical mechanics and the operator formulation of QM via Koopman-von-Neumann classical (statistical) mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_classical_mechanics

Strictly speaking, the only difference between usual classical (statistical) mechanics and QM is the fact that the particle's position and its momentum do not commute, that is a measurment on the former can change the later and vice versa. In ordinary classical mechanics this fact is blurred because one always interacts with heavy objects, for which this change is negligible.

My problem with a positive answer would be that some local rule cellular automaton are Turing universal, which would imply that entanglement could be simulated by a model that uses a classical local rule. This seems wrong, doesn't it?

There is a classical, local, deterministic and realistic equivalent of QM, called bohmian mechanics. And no, it is NOT non-local, e.g. supports instantanious actions. Bell's locality condition is just non-sense. See this Link.

There is a nice playlist on youtube considering this topic: https://youtu.be/_6TNF854Xmo?list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m

Also, currently there are experiments done that support this interpretation of QM: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

Furthermore there is a deep correspondance between classical statistical mechanics and the operator formulation of QM via Koopman-von-Neumann classical (statistical) mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_classical_mechanics

Strictly speaking, the only difference between usual classical (statistical) mechanics and QM is the fact that the particle's position and its momentum do not commute, that is a measurment on the former can change the later and vice versa. In ordinary classical mechanics this fact is blurred because one always interacts with heavy objects, for which this change is negligible.

3 added 245 characters in body
source | link

My problem with a positive answer would be that some local rule cellular automaton are Turing universal, which would imply that entanglement could be simulated by a model that uses a classical local rule. This seems wrong, doesn't it?

Yes, thereThere is a classical, local, deterministic and realistic equivalent of QM, called bohmian mechanics. And no, it is NOT non-local, e.g. supports instantanious actions. Bell's locality condition is just non-sense. See this Link.

There is a nice playlist on youtube considering this topic: https://youtu.be/_6TNF854Xmo?list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m

Also, currently there are experiments done that support this interpretation of QM: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

Furthermore there is a deep correspondance between classical statistical mechanics and the operator formulation of QM via Koopman-von-Neumann classical (statistical) mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_classical_mechanics

Strictly speaking, the only difference between usual classical (statistical) mechanics and QM is the fact that the particle's position and its momentum do not commute, that is a measurment on the former can change the later and vice versa. In ordinary classical mechanics this fact is blurred because one always interacts with heavy objects, for which this change is negligible.

Yes, there is a classical, local, deterministic and realistic equivalent of QM, called bohmian mechanics. And no, it is NOT non-local, e.g. supports instantanious actions. Bell's locality condition is just non-sense. Link.

There is a nice playlist on youtube considering this topic: https://youtu.be/_6TNF854Xmo?list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m

Also, currently there are experiments done that support this interpretation of QM: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

Furthermore there is a deep correspondance between classical statistical mechanics and the operator formulation of QM via Koopman-von-Neumann classical (statistical) mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_classical_mechanics

Strictly speaking, the only difference between usual classical (statistical) mechanics and QM is the fact that the particle's position and its momentum do not commute, that is a measurment on the former can change the later and vice versa. In ordinary classical mechanics this fact is blurred because one always interacts with heavy objects, for which this change is negligible.

My problem with a positive answer would be that some local rule cellular automaton are Turing universal, which would imply that entanglement could be simulated by a model that uses a classical local rule. This seems wrong, doesn't it?

There is a classical, local, deterministic and realistic equivalent of QM, called bohmian mechanics. And no, it is NOT non-local, e.g. supports instantanious actions. Bell's locality condition is just non-sense. See this Link.

There is a nice playlist on youtube considering this topic: https://youtu.be/_6TNF854Xmo?list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m

Also, currently there are experiments done that support this interpretation of QM: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

Furthermore there is a deep correspondance between classical statistical mechanics and the operator formulation of QM via Koopman-von-Neumann classical (statistical) mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_classical_mechanics

Strictly speaking, the only difference between usual classical (statistical) mechanics and QM is the fact that the particle's position and its momentum do not commute, that is a measurment on the former can change the later and vice versa. In ordinary classical mechanics this fact is blurred because one always interacts with heavy objects, for which this change is negligible.

2 added 641 characters in body
source | link

Yes, there is a classical, local, deterministic and realistic equivalent of QM, called bohmian mechanics. And no, it is NOT non-local, e.g. supports instantanious actions. Bell's locality condition is just non-sense. Link.

There is a nice playlist on youtube considering this topic: https://youtu.be/_6TNF854Xmo?list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m

Also, currently there are experiments done that support this interpretation of QM: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

Furthermore there is a deep correspondance between classical statistical mechanics and the operator formulation of QM via Koopman-von-Neumann classical (statistical) mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_classical_mechanics

Strictly speaking, the only difference between usual classical (statistical) mechanics and QM is the fact that the particle's position and its momentum do not commute, that is a measurment on the former can change the later and vice versa. In ordinary classical mechanics this fact is blurred because one always interacts with heavy objects, for which this change is negligible.

Yes, there is a classical, local, deterministic and realistic equivalent of QM, called bohmian mechanics. And no, it is NOT non-local, e.g. supports instantanious actions. Bell's locality condition is just non-sense. Link.

There is a nice playlist on youtube considering this topic: https://youtu.be/_6TNF854Xmo?list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m

Also, currently there are experiments done that support this interpretation of QM: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

Yes, there is a classical, local, deterministic and realistic equivalent of QM, called bohmian mechanics. And no, it is NOT non-local, e.g. supports instantanious actions. Bell's locality condition is just non-sense. Link.

There is a nice playlist on youtube considering this topic: https://youtu.be/_6TNF854Xmo?list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m

Also, currently there are experiments done that support this interpretation of QM: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

Furthermore there is a deep correspondance between classical statistical mechanics and the operator formulation of QM via Koopman-von-Neumann classical (statistical) mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_classical_mechanics

Strictly speaking, the only difference between usual classical (statistical) mechanics and QM is the fact that the particle's position and its momentum do not commute, that is a measurment on the former can change the later and vice versa. In ordinary classical mechanics this fact is blurred because one always interacts with heavy objects, for which this change is negligible.

1
source | link