Can Quantum Weirdness Be Logically Predicted?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
To answer the original question:

I've had the thought running around in my head that "quantum weirdness" could be the result of perfectly predictable behavior in a distinct system, and that our view of it from this spacetime is just a sort of slice of it. Here it's random, but that's because we can't follow the rest of the rules since our system precludes us from even modeling it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I'm sure somebody has mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Bell's theorem answers questions like this. Your posited "rest of the rules" would be the hidden variables, in Bell's language, and so unless you want your theory to have superluminal influences (making it nonlocal) you're out of luck.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no information transmitted in experiments that show violations of Bell's inequality.

[/ QUOTE ]
I very much sympathize with this "standard" point of view, but some authors have argued that it is the assumption of locality that is at fault in Bell's inequalities. I am aware of no theorem proving that it must be realism that should be abandoned -- all we know for sure is that the combination "local realism" doesn't work. Apparently, chez falls in with the non-locality crowd, which is a bit unusual but by no means ruled out experimentally.

[/ QUOTE ]


Again, only information and energy can not be transmitted at greater than the speed of light, so having effects that occur instantaneously, but do not transmit information are fine with all physical theories.

Bell assumed that info was being transmitted and so causality, events transmitted at the speed of light, (or local realism, which is a silly phrase, as you are calling it) would be violated. However, there is no info, so there is no violation and his assumption is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
This cannot be correct (well not simply correct in a way that helps me anyway). The question is whether or not info is being transmitted. Concluding that no information is transmitted requires an experiment that can tell the difference between info being transmitted instantaneously and information being transmitted suffucientlty close to instantaeneously. No experiment is needed to know that no experiment can tell the difference, all it can do is place a constraint on what counts as 'sufficiently'

So either you missesd the point about what I said or i'm missing the point about what you're saying.

[metric, I'm not in the non-locality crowd. I'm in the 'it makes no difference crowd' so either way of thinking about it is fine. As far as I can see it's logically impossible to distingish non-locality from non-realism in current science. If I have a bias I suppose its towards non-locality because i think all non-realism models in future science must also have a non-local logical equivalent]

chez