What Interpretation/Model of QM Predicts Bell Inequality Violations ?

In summary, there are no modern interpretations of QM that predict the correlations in a Bell Inequality violation, as any interpretation that does not predict these violations would be rejected. This means that all remotely serious philosophic interpretations of QM predict Bell inequality violations. The "shut up calculate" interpretation accurately describes the Bell inequality violation. Additionally, all interpretations of QM lead to the same math, with the only difference being the interpretation of the math. Although there may have been a misunderstanding in the conversation, the main point remains that all interpretations of QM do not violate the results predicted by the experiment proposed by Bell.
  • #1
morrobay
Gold Member
1,080
1,479
Are there any modern interpretations of QM that predict the correlations in a Bell Inequality
violation ? Preferably a local non realistic model based on mechanisms.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
morrobay said:
Are there any modern interpretations of QM that predict the correlations in a Bell Inequality
violation ? Preferably a local non realistic model based on mechanisms.

Any interpretation that does not predict observed violations of the bell inequalities would immediately be rejected. Thus, all remotely serious philosophic interpretations of QM predict Bell inequality violations.
 
  • #3
The "shut up calculate" interpretation perfectly describes the Bell inequality violation.
 
  • #4
None. All interpretations of QM lead to the same math. The only difference is the interpretation of the math.
 
  • #5
dauto said:
None. All interpretations of QM lead to the same math. The only difference is the interpretation of the math.

I think you meant "all of them"?
 
  • #6
Nugatory said:
I think you meant "all of them"?

I guess so, because QM violates the inequality. I meant to say that none of them violate the results predicted by QM for the experiment proposed by Bell, which is not the same thing, granted.
 

FAQ: What Interpretation/Model of QM Predicts Bell Inequality Violations ?

1. What is the Bell Inequality?

The Bell Inequality is a mathematical inequality proposed by physicist John Stewart Bell in 1964. It is used to test the predictions of quantum mechanics against the assumptions of local realism, which states that objects have definite properties regardless of whether they are measured or not.

2. What is the significance of Bell Inequality violations?

Bell Inequality violations suggest that the predictions of quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local realism. This supports the idea that particles can be entangled, meaning that their properties are correlated even when they are separated by large distances. This has important implications for our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality.

3. How do Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics address the Bell Inequality?

Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics attempt to explain the underlying principles and concepts of quantum mechanics. Some interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, do not address the Bell Inequality directly. However, other interpretations, such as the many-worlds interpretation, attempt to provide a framework in which the Bell Inequality violations can be understood.

4. Which Interpretation/Model of QM best predicts Bell Inequality violations?

There is no consensus on which interpretation or model of quantum mechanics best predicts Bell Inequality violations. Each interpretation has its own strengths and weaknesses, and it is an ongoing area of research in physics.

5. Why is the study of Bell Inequality violations important?

The study of Bell Inequality violations is important because it helps us explore the fundamental nature of reality and understand the behavior of particles at a quantum level. It also has practical applications, such as in the development of quantum technologies like quantum computing and secure communication.

Similar threads

I Bohmian Prediction of Bell Inequality Violations
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
I Understanding Bell Inequality Proof: Explained from a Probability Perspective
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
A Game theory, quantum physics and the Bell inequality (paper)
Replies
2
Views
2K
A Hidden Assumptions in Bell's Theorem?
10
Replies
333
Views
14K
A Assumptions of the Bell theorem
25
Replies
874
Views
36K
I The notion of locality in (Quantum) Physics should be clearly defined
6
Replies
175
Views
9K
I Model used to refute Bell's theorem
Replies
19
Views
2K
I Could Tim Maudlin's Views on Bell and QM Be Flawed?
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
A Loophole-free test of local realism via Hardy's violation
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
I Getting rid of nonlocality from quantum physics
4
Replies
123
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top