Is there another workable interpretation of the Bell Inequality?

[.Scott]

TL;DR Summary

A recent article in Quantum Magazine invokes the notion that some events in our universe may be prohibited simply because they would add to the total information in a very subtle way. It seems to me that this might constitute a kind of "reason" behind Bell-Inequality-type logic.

I just read an article in Quantum Magazine about "unitary" results and how this is tied to looking at the reversibility of quantum events.

It provided an easy-to-understand mechanism for tracking the effects of adding information to a fictional universe. The example they gave for detecting a "new information" violation doesn't apply to real-world QM, but it does demonstrate how easily that "check" encoding could be maintained.

So, I wonder how the QM rules might be re-interpreted if this kind of persistent check information was kept and used in "real QM".

I think the alternate interpretation might look like this:

The Bell inequality can be erased if you presume: 1) that the set of measurements you are making is actually a selection from a larger set; and 2) that the selection is controlled by hidden variables in each particle of the entanglement. So, for example, each photon has a hidden value that is an actual angle. When the photon reaches the measurement instrument, the + or - result will be a function of the photon angle and the measurement angle. If they mostly match (+/-45 degrees) it's +1, otherwise it's -1. But, then you apply a separate rule related to the addition of information to the universe: The stronger the match (cosine of the angle), the more likely it is to exist at all - and thus the more likely it is to be tallied in the statistics. In essence, local reality is preserved because all of the information was shared long before the experiment even started. Or, alternatively, you can't create a really fair Bell Inequality experiment without adding information to the universe.

This doesn't sway my view on local reality theory because I still can't see how particles could interact at all without violating it.

 

[PeterDonis]

I think the alternate interpretation might look like this

Are you getting this from the article, or a paper referenced by it? Remember that personal speculations are off limits here at PF.

 

[.Scott]

In the article's attempt to reconcile gravity and particle physics, they describe a way to view adding information to the universe. And they highlight the distinctiveness of such new information. It builds on their argument that there is a way out of the paradox - though I do not fully follow their logic.

Not all "new ways of looking at something" constitute a "new interpretation" and I am uncertain whether the authors in the article have crossed the line on that point. But I am focusing on their revelation that new information can be distinctive. I'm basically asking if that notion has wings. Does anyone see this notion as having wider usefulness?

I don't think there is a way to successfully ask these kind of questions without taking a sample shot at it myself. In that sense, I suppose anyone who makes a poor attempt at solving a HW assignment has ventured into some level of speculation.

I believe I have couched my remarks in "wonder" and "think" sufficiently to make it clear that I have no confidence in my line of thinking and that I am not encouraging anyone else to take this as more than questions.

In any case, thanks for the attention. I noticed that my post attracted readers fairly quickly and that you took a long look at it before responding.

I'm not sure, but also think that I may have an item of the Math wrong - in order to make this fit, I think that "cosine" may need to be "cosine squared".

Of course, if I have crossed the PF lines, just kill the post.
Or, if it needs more citation for the Bell inequality arithmetic (or something else), I can do that too.

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't think there is a way to successfully ask these kind of questions without taking a sample shot at it myself.

Yes, there is an obvious way: look at what the authors of the actual paper did. A paper is referenced in the article you linked to. Read it. And then ask questions based on what you read. That is much better than engaging in personal speculation.

 

[PeterDonis]

Read it. And then ask questions based on what you read.

And, since this can perfectly well be done in a new thread that references the actual paper, this thread is now closed.