3
$\begingroup$

So I read that Bell's tests prove that reality cannot follow the requirements of both realism and locality. My understanding is that:

Realism: Objects have definite properties before they are measured.

Locality: Particles cannot talk faster than the speed of light. They can only interact locally.

One could also say that Bell's tests disprove local realism. For me this seems to suggest that reality could fall into one of three other categories:

1.) non-local realism

2.) local non-realism

or

3.) non-local non-realism

So my questions are:

1.) What is the consensus of these other categories? and

2.) which one(s) does/could reality fall into?

3.) Based on my understandings about QM, it seems that both locality and realism go out the window. Is there a necessity for either? or are they both just classical concepts we can't let go?

4.) Am I confused? are these questions valid?

Thank-you in advance!

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ well, quantum mechanics would fall under the "local non-realism" option (or at least this is the case if by "locality" you mean that the theory does not allow for superluminal communication). In this sense, I would say that that is the option with the biggest "consensus". $\endgroup$
    – glS
    Apr 7, 2019 at 11:11
  • $\begingroup$ This is a good question and well posed. Too bad is was closed due to answers being “opinion based” ...just like so many other important questions in quantum foundations. Consensus in QM community is non local non realism. $\endgroup$
    – Pat Eblen
    Aug 10, 2019 at 2:55
  • $\begingroup$ Thankyou Pat. I appreciate that. It was meant to be an honest question. $\endgroup$ Aug 10, 2019 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ The consensus is based almost entirely on Bell tests, which have issues. See here scirp.org/Journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=92298. Non-locality is not proven by Bell tests. Re realism, all property values, both classical and quantal, are established only within a defined context. This is why realism, which is objective, does not make sense. Contexts are constantly changing, and a context must be defined for a property value to manifest. This means values become manifest only relative to a measurement/manifestation context, so objective values cannot exist. My belief is local non realism. $\endgroup$
    – Pat Eblen
    Aug 14, 2019 at 16:40

0