From Ken Regan, arguably the most interesting insight I've seen so far:
https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/quantum-supremacy-and-complexity/ ... quote:
Quantum supremacy has a stronger meaning than saying that nature is fundamentally quantum: it means that nature operates in concrete...
The CLT is mathematical. It helps to establish the consistency and validity of statistical probability as a mathematical theory. I used the word "causal" deliberately. There is no physical model describing or explaining the measured correlations between responses of the sample population of...
We don't have a story that explains important classical correlations either. Why does a well-conducted exit poll accurately (within the given margin of error) mirror final election results? I mean, you've got a couple of thousand randomly-selected people representing the data of millions. Where...
Don't know what this means. I put "collapses the wavefunction" in scare quotes for a reason I assumed was obvious. Bohr for example considered state vector collapse a mathematical convenience possessing no physical reality. Dieter Zeh and the Many Minds school disown collapse as conventionally...
How is it necessary to assume wrongness of quantum theory in connection with the experiments? The measurement "collapses the wavefunction" rendering it no longer unitary and yields an eigenvalue. The eigenvalue is a classical artifact. So, in effect all measurements are classical. We're...
Also there's a Tsirelson's Bound experiment from June which doesn't seem to have been discussed on PF. Maybe a new thread needs to be started.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01865
In addition to almost getting to Tsirelson's Bound the group claims to have exceeded the Grinbaum limit thereby...
Thanks. Linking to your link I found a third thread linked to, which appears to be subsumed too:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/first-loophole-free-bell-test.829586/
There are three all-loopholes-closed experiments now: Delft, Vienna and NIST. Is this the thread for discussion of all of them or is there another thread I haven't sussed out?
Don't overlook Kaiser et al's cosmic photons proposal. I believe Zeilinger (among others) has also been thinking along those lines. So anyway are we entering an era when metaphysical issues will be settled by experiment? It's already hard enough for philosophy postdocs to find careers.
Sorry. I suspect I shouldn't have said "screw your ..." However, the first post on this thread asked a certifiably, purely, quintessentially metaphysical question (go ahead, deny that):
"When drawing conclusions from this most important and profound theorem, I wonder if somebody has...
I didn't want to diss the post that began the thread. And you're right, that's exactly what BT is: the concise expression of classical realism. Although it's not really naive in the macroworld we live in (unless, like say the dreadful Joy Christian, one is a hopeless crackpot) because you can't...
"When drawing conclusions from this most important and profound theorem, I wonder if somebody has interpreted its proof of the falseness of local realism as implicitly referring to elementary particles as realistic objects."
You can't go wrong going with Zeilinger, a Bellmeister who goes this...
"Quantum measurement predictions are consistent with relativity for macroscopic observations, but there is no consensus on how to explain this consistency in fundamental terms. The prevailing assumption is that the relativistic structure of spacetime should provide the framework for any...
No. In the case of the Cat you've got a radioactive isotope that either decays or doesn't decay within a given time. If it decays, then a Geiger counter (measuring equipment/measuring instrument) detects (measures) an emission. The Geiger counter is connected by an electrical circuit to a...
The most important issue in all this is the role of "the observer". And it's largely a red herring that was most (in)famously promulgated by Schrödinger in the Cat gedanken and inaccurately (perhaps disingenuously) ascribed at that time to Bohr and Heisenberg. Bohr certainly never took the bait...