Skip to main content
5 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 22, 2023 at 17:03 comment added DrChinese Whether you call QM incomplete or not is, today, is more a definitional or philosophical question. You are living in the EPR of 1935. I would not agree with your characterization of there being only 2 forks, as the experimental proofs of quantum nonlocality demonstrate something that doesn’t quite fit into either of your buckets. At any rate, dismissal of Bell undermines almost everything you wrote as an answer. Mentioning superdeterminism is flawed because there is no such theory or interpretation at this time. And discussion of it belongs in a separate question, not in an answer to the OP.
Dec 22, 2023 at 6:15 comment added Andrei @DrChinese, Those forks are the only logically consistent positions you can have in the light of the argument presented here. The argument was not about Bell, but even in that case (1) survives in the form of superdeterminism. The logical principle of the excluded middle implies that the (1) and (2) options are the only possible ones (either locality is true or it is not). But if you go with 2 you need to introduce an order so that you can distinguish between cause and effect, otherwise the theory is incomplete.
Dec 21, 2023 at 20:19 comment added DrChinese Both forks you presented (1 and 2) are incorrect. The 1 commentary ignores Bell. Bell shows clearly that locally predetermined outcomes are incompatible with the correct predictions of QM. The 2 commentary is wrong because there is no relevant order in measuring entanglement. The predictions of QM do not specify a causal direction. You are free to assume one, but relativity has nothing to do with the quantum version of this.
Dec 21, 2023 at 11:16 vote accept Marco Fabbri
Dec 21, 2023 at 11:27
Dec 21, 2023 at 10:09 history answered Andrei CC BY-SA 4.0