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*

25
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ +1 lol you start out saying that you are just writing a long comment, and then actually ended up with a proper full answer including watching the whole video. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ I have poor self-control about figuring things out. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ postscript: my fruit bowl had two apples in it. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ruffolo You have misread what I wrote (which I understood was also of the points in the video). Bell's theorem defines a question. We draw conclusions about the question based on experimental evidence, not based on a mathematical theorem. If I remember correctly, the toy model in Bell's 1964 paper was ruled out by Aspect in the 1980s; Bohm's "pilot wave" model was ruled out in 2015. Other proposals remain, but my understanding is that they make some assumptions which the community finds more improbable than the simpler idea that quantum mechanics works how it says it works. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We could say that the theorem does not end the question by itself, but to say that it just defines the question is again, too much. If you rely on the quantum postulates and the prediction power of it, the result of the theorem is a theoretical answer for the question. Of course Physics is an experimental science, so theoretical answers are not enough, but they are answers as well $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago