- #176
mayflow
- 14
- 0
Jonathan Scott said:You do persist in missing the point, don't you?
Bell's theorem itself is very simple and very robust. It proves that either QM is wrong or the assumption of local realism (which is normally taken as part of Special Relativity) is wrong. It basically boils down to the fact that the differences between sets A and C cannot exceed the sum of the differences between sets A and B and between sets B and C, regardless of the physical models which gave rise to these results.
As the relevant parts of QM are very strongly supported by experiment, this means that it is almost certainly the assumption of local realism which is wrong. This is obviously very disturbing and unexpected, and it does indeed conflict with the principle of relativity. Scientists are therefore interested in trying to understand exactly how QM violates local realism, and whether there might be some underlying inner mechanism that would help to explain how it works.
QM is so new to the scene, and Bell's theorem is so awesome, because it breaks old thought barriers. It's not maybe quite understanding how to supersede the speed of light, but it apparently shows it can be done par exellance!