Skip to main content
Physics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

13
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "At 38:30, it states: 'So quantum mechanics is non-local...' However, as I understand it, Quantum Mechanics is a local theory..." You need to resolve this before proceeding to the rest of your question. Are you wrong or are they wrong about this locality point? You might start by explaining what you mean by "local" and what you think they mean by "non-local". $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 29 at 1:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ (It just doesn't make sense to try and answer a question about a "local hidden variable theory" if it is not even clear that you agree or disagree about what "local" means in the first place.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 29 at 1:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @hft has already made the key point, but let me put it another way: Different people use the same English words to mean different things. My wife and I cannot agree on whether my favorite sweater is blue or green. That doesn't mean one of us is wrong; it means we are using the word "blue" in two different ways. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 29 at 1:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No, the experimental tests of Bell's theorem do rule that out, but it depends very strictly upon what definitions are being used for all those words. Which is what everybody had been telling you up until now. You have to be extremely careful with disentangling all those different definitions, and trying to gotcha a scientist who is already carefully presenting the experiment, is just not the way to make sense of anything. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 29 at 3:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @naturallyInconsistent, it does seem fair to say the video is wrong or, at best, really misleading because of ambiguous definitions in physics. It also seems fair to point out that the claim is wrong, because the claim itself is stating that other physics textbooks/papers get this wrong, when this is again due ambigious definations. I would have no problem if it stated something along the lines of "based on what we think are useful definitions of these terms, Bell's theorem does not rule out local realism." $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 29 at 3:19