As posted on the link (see my post 57), Norsen in his papers discusses why Bell felt that his theorem does tell us something about nature:
Quote:
Since all the crucial aspects of Bell’s formulation of locality are thus meaningful only relative to some candidate theory, it is perhaps puzzling how Bell thought we could say anything about the locally causal character of Nature. Wouldn’t the locality condition only allow us to assess the local character of candidate theories? How then did Bell think we could end up saying something interesting about Nature?...That is precisely the beauty of Bell’s theorem, which shows that no theory respecting the locality condition (no matter what other properties it may or may not have – e.g., hidden variables or only the non-hidden sort, deterministic or stochastic, particles or fields or both or neither, etc.) can agree with the empirically-verified QM predictions for certain types of experiment. That is (and leaving aside the various experimental loopholes), no locally causal theory in Bell’s sense can agree with experiment, can be empirically viable, can be true. Which means the true theory (whatever it might be) necessarily violates Bell’s locality condition. Nature is not locally causal.
Local Causality and Completeness: Bell vs. Jarretthttp://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.2178v1.pdfWith respect to a discussion of Bell's concept of local causality which is ruled out see this paper arguing once again why Bell's theorem does allow us to say something about nature:
Quote:
This of course raises the question of how we might go from recognizing the non-locality of some particular candidate theory, to the claim that nature is non-local. But this is just Bell’s theorem: all candidate theories which respect the locality condition are inconsistent with experiment. (See Section VI.) So the “one true theory” (whatever that turns out to be!) – and hence nature itself – must violate relativistic local causality.
J.S. Bell’s Concept of Local Causalityhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.0401.pdfgraywyvern wrote:
this probably doesn't mean what it seems to mean. we won't suddenly be able to teleport or telekinect just because our math gets a little squirrelly.
I agree but it may be trying to tell us something about our present models as Bell writes:
Quote:
For me then this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation [of quantum theory] and fundamental relativity. That is to say, we have an apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two fundamental pillars of contemporary theory...It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal.
24 Feb 2013, 8:19 pm
