Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
The shoe analogy is an example of the "hidden variable" interpretation, which unfortunately is disproven by Bells Theorem.
The thing about quantum mechanics is that it's just different to classical mechanics. Any attempt to explain the behavior using a non-quantum analogy is going to be insufficient. How do electrons behave? They behave like electrons according to the rules of quantum physics... Not like tennis balls.
Bell's theorem does not disprove hidden variables as it relies on various assumptions.
(1) Locality. The EPR paper already proves a non-hidden variable model of locality is mathematically impossible, so if you are rejecting hidden variables, you're already rejecting locality, so Bell's theorem no longer applies.
(2) Fundamental arrow of time, more specifically that systems can only be affected by events in a local causal chain down its backwards light cone but not its forward light cone. This requires a rigorous definition of which temporaral direction is "forwards" vs "backwards," something Bell never provides. Without it, there is no obvious reason that causality should flow in one direction and not the other. A model where causality is indifferent to the arrow of time is called time-symmetric.
(3) Free will, the assumption that humans have the ability to make decisions that are statistically independent of all physical phenomena (note that the assumption is that they "have the ability to" not all decisions are statistically independent of all physical phenomena). If there is a law of physics that enforces certain correlations such that a system cannot evolve in a way to break those correlations, given that humans are also made of particles that obey the laws of physics, humans would also be unable to make the conscious decision to break those correlations, leading to an unintentional bias in each experiment. Dropping the free will assumption gives you what is called superdeterminism.
Bell himself did not believe he ruled out hidden variables but was the biggest advocate of them. Bell thought the free will assumption was necessary for the scientific method and that time-symmetry was not even worth considering. He also understood that the EPR paper succeeding in completely ruling out local non-hidden variable models. Hence, he concluded that his theorem just rules out local hidden variable models, not hidden variable models in general, and if you combine that with the results of the EPR paper that rule out local non-hidden variable models, then the natural conclusion is that Bell ruled out locality as a whole.
Indeed, that was Bell's actual conclusion and belief regarding his theorem. Bell regarded his finding as having ruled out locality, not hidden variables. Bell was a major proponent of nonlocal hidden variable models, he even wrote a paper trying to develop Bohm's pilot wave theory and accused other physicists of intentionally trying to keep quantum mechanics seemingly more mysterious by sweeping it under the rug.