- #36
akhmeteli
- 805
- 38
Maaneli said:I think there is good reason to expect that Barut's theory does violate the Bell inequalities. The self-field is defined in terms of the probability current j_mu, which is a current in configuration space. Therefore, for two electrons in an atom entangled in configuration space at the level of their probability currents, let's say, then their radiated source fields will also be entangled in terms of their polarizations and wavevectors.
I am not sure j_mu is a current in configuration space in the Barut's theory (which I'll call SFED hereafter - self-field electrodynamics) - just look how Barut defines the current for two particles (in the quote in one of my posts related to the Pauli principle) - the wavefunctions for the two particles, \psi_1 and \psi_2, are in 3D, and the current depends locally on them. nightlight, for example, does not believe there are any VBI in SFED, as far as I understand.
Furthermore, entanglement is not enough for VBI, as far as I understand, you need the projection postulate as well, or something like it, to obtain VBI.
Maaneli said:I understand that POV, and am sympathetic to it. But there's nothing that logically implies physical laws <=> beauty.
Certainly, but I don't believe my wording ("I just tend to think that fundamental theories are typically simple and beautiful") was categorical.