| Revision as of 22:05, 26 June 2012 editF=q(E+v^B) (talk | contribs)4,289 edits archive extremley long terminated discussions← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:33, 30 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,026 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Bell's theorem/Archive 10) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{maths rating|class=B|priority=High|field=mathematical physics}} | |||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Mathematics|priority=mid}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Physics |importance=High }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 10 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 1 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | ||
| |algo = old(90d) | |algo = old(90d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Bell's theorem/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Bell's theorem/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives |search=yes |bot= |
{{archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=12 |units=months |index=/Archive index }} | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == A possible mistake? == | |||
| Written by the author - A<sub>0</sub> A<sub>1</sub> + A<sub>0</sub>A<sub>3</sub> + A<sub>2</sub>A<sub>1</sub> - A<sub>2</sub>A<sub>3</sub> . Obviously, the following equality is true: (A<sub>0</sub> + A<sub>2</sub>)A<sub>1</sub> + (A<sub>0</sub> - A<sub>2</sub>)A<sub>3</sub> etc. But the result of ONE MEASUREMENT can be ONLY 2 parameters. For example, A<sub>0</sub> and A<sub>3</sub> (if they have "heads" by flipping a coin for this ONE measurement). A<sub>2</sub> and A<sub>1</sub> are not determinated in this measure and are INDETERMINATE. Then what is it (A<sub>0</sub> + A<sub>2</sub>) and (A<sub>0</sub> - A<sub>2</sub>) - is unclear... Further construction is collapsing. Apparently, it would immediately move on to the average values and write a chain of equalities for them? ] (]) 18:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In the text, uppercase letters refer to measurement results, while lowercase letters stand for the ''hidden properties.'' By assumption, the hidden properties exist whether or not they are measured. So, we can manipulate the lowercase variables by the regular rules of algebra however we like, without worrying about them being "indeterminate". The whole point is to deduce the consequences of that assumption and then show that those consequences conflict with the predictions of quantum mechanics. ] (]) 19:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes... Clearly. | |||
| :: Thanks. ] (]) 13:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent review == | |||
| I was surprised that this review was not cited. | |||
| * Wharton, K. B., & Argaman, N. (2020). Colloquium: Bell’s theorem and locally mediated reformulations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(2), 021002. | |||
| Among many topics it mentions Everett's model, the subject of recent edits. ] (]) 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Article is self contradictory re locality == | |||
| ==Lede== | |||
| The version reverted to here reads more clearly for the lede. ] (]) 20:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Intro says experimental results are incompatible with local hidden variable theories, but Manyworlds section says Bell's doesn't apply and it is a dynamically local theory. This is clearly inconsistent with the intro. Suggest intro be changed to "*most* local hidden variable theories" ] (]) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Disagree'''...per Stanford University's much clearer -- and vastly more authoritative -- cited article on '''. --] (]) 11:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Agree'''. The original longstanding consensus version is much clearer. ] (]) 11:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :No. Hidden worlds don't seem to count as "hidden variables". So all local hidden variables are incompatible. ] (]) 17:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. The old version of the lead is the consensus version. It has been stable for over 5 years, meaning that many editors have implicitly endorsed it (see ] and ]). If this were a vote, not only would we have the implicit consensus that already existed, but ''in addition'' it is two to one against the new change. FNS, if you want this to be included, then you have to make your case here and convince ''somebody else'' that you are right. ] (]) 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The MWI (or rather, all the various versions of it proposed over the years) is not a hidden-variable model. In a hidden-variable model, either a wavefunction is a probability distribution over the true physical states, or the hidden variables exist in addition to the wavefunction. In MWI, the wavefunction ''is'' physical reality. ] (]) 22:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:33, 30 December 2024
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 Archives | ||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
A possible mistake?
Written by the author - A0 A1 + A0A3 + A2A1 - A2A3 . Obviously, the following equality is true: (A0 + A2)A1 + (A0 - A2)A3 etc. But the result of ONE MEASUREMENT can be ONLY 2 parameters. For example, A0 and A3 (if they have "heads" by flipping a coin for this ONE measurement). A2 and A1 are not determinated in this measure and are INDETERMINATE. Then what is it (A0 + A2) and (A0 - A2) - is unclear... Further construction is collapsing. Apparently, it would immediately move on to the average values and write a chain of equalities for them? 144.206.128.253 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- In the text, uppercase letters refer to measurement results, while lowercase letters stand for the hidden properties. By assumption, the hidden properties exist whether or not they are measured. So, we can manipulate the lowercase variables by the regular rules of algebra however we like, without worrying about them being "indeterminate". The whole point is to deduce the consequences of that assumption and then show that those consequences conflict with the predictions of quantum mechanics. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes... Clearly.
- Thanks. 144.206.128.253 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Recent review
I was surprised that this review was not cited.
- Wharton, K. B., & Argaman, N. (2020). Colloquium: Bell’s theorem and locally mediated reformulations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(2), 021002.
Among many topics it mentions Everett's model, the subject of recent edits. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Article is self contradictory re locality
Intro says experimental results are incompatible with local hidden variable theories, but Manyworlds section says Bell's doesn't apply and it is a dynamically local theory. This is clearly inconsistent with the intro. Suggest intro be changed to "*most* local hidden variable theories" Joncolvin (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. Hidden worlds don't seem to count as "hidden variables". So all local hidden variables are incompatible. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- The MWI (or rather, all the various versions of it proposed over the years) is not a hidden-variable model. In a hidden-variable model, either a wavefunction is a probability distribution over the true physical states, or the hidden variables exist in addition to the wavefunction. In MWI, the wavefunction is physical reality. XOR'easter (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)