I am reading a collection of interviews taken with prominent physicists as in an aftermath of famous Alain Aspect experiment. Between them John Bell states that if local realism has to go, he would be inclined to ditch locality, betting that there is something wrong with relativity.

I understand that relativity is truly one of the foundations of modern physics including QFT and that Lorenz transformations are tested to a great level of accuracy.

My question is, if somebody is actively working on this, as an alternative to the relativity theory ?

P.S. I mean a real alternative, not reintroducing some kind of ether/preferred reference frame which can never be detected.

  • $\begingroup$ The true solution (as Bell himself acknowledged) is to accept determinism - such philosophy is not so much a problem for physics as it is for physicists. Bell's Theorem basically rests on the assumption that the workings of the universe are unsystematic (i.e. not subject to cause, effect, and conservation, an assumption that is really quite contrary to scientific investigation and much physical theory and philosophy). If we accept that the universe is systematic, then the problem of Bell's Theorem is solved by making it irrelevant. $\endgroup$
    – Steve
    Jan 27, 2018 at 1:51
  • $\begingroup$ Incidentally, I often think the apparent problem of "entanglement" in QM is simply due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on. $\endgroup$
    – Steve
    Jan 27, 2018 at 2:06
  • $\begingroup$ Note that even if locality is ditched information itself cannot travel faster than light. So Relativity remains valid. Note that the problem with the Bell results of no local realism could also mean that both locality and realism (or at least naive realism) may not hold. It's pretty clear from QT that determinism or some common versions of realism cannot be true, and from the it also and the AdS/CFT correspondence that locality also is probably not true. But both Relativity and QT can still be. It's interpretation, not physics that you are discussing. $\endgroup$
    – Bob Bee
    Jan 27, 2018 at 3:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ QT theory is not like a classical probability. In fact the wavefunction evolution is deterministic (from the Shrodinger and equivalent equations, also called unitary evolution), and that conserves the probability total to 1 always. But the results, measurements or even where anything is at any one time is indeed quantum probabilistic. Bell found that. The probabilities do not go by classical probability theory, and that the real value of his theorem/findings. TRy finding a good review, it'll blow your mind and take away false interpretations. $\endgroup$
    – Bob Bee
    Jan 27, 2018 at 4:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Anyway, you are totally off the mainstream: the mainstream does not believe that physics or the universe is deterministic in your sense. $\endgroup$
    – Bob Bee
    Jan 27, 2018 at 4:21


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.