OK. Here's the problem, simply stated, by a fan of Bell, right here:
"...as we stated, Bell's original proof was in terms of hidden variable theories. His assumptions were:
- Logic is valid.
- Hidden variables exist.
- Hidden variables are local.
Most people, including me,
view the assumption of local hidden variables as very similar to the assumption of a local reality."
Bell's Theorem
Emphasis mine. Note it's made on an assumption.
Also note that Bell's theorem says nothing at all about consciousness or the observer effect, which is of course
what I thought we were talking about.
Didn't you come into this conversation stating that everything was up for grabs because of QM, now you're saying QM is invalid because of Bell's theorem?
And forgive me, but it seems like we're counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin here...
"Though the series of increasingly sophisticated Bell test experiments has convinced the physics community in general that local realism is untenable, it remains true that the outcome of every single experiment done so far that violates a Bell inequality can still theoretically be explained by local realism, by exploiting the detection loophole and/or the locality loophole. To avoid the locality loophole, the experimenter has to arrange that the particles travel far apart before being measured, and that the measurement process is rapid and moreover successful. The most serious loophole is the detection loophole, which means that particles are not always detected in both wings of the experiment. It is possible to "engineer"
quantum correlations (the experimental result) by letting detection be dependent on a combination of local hidden variables and detector setting. Experimenters have repeatedly stated that loophole-free tests can be expected in the near future.
[19] On the other hand, some researchers point out that it is a logical possibility that quantum physics itself prevents a loophole-free test from ever being implemented."
Bell test experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And finally, back to basics -- and the thrust of the argument, I believe here:
"An important aspect of the concept of
measurement has been clarified in some QM experiments where a small, complex, and non-sentient sensor proved sufficient as an "observer"—there is no need for a conscious "observer".
[7]
A consequence of
Bell's theorem is that measurement on one of two
entangled particles can appear to have a nonlocal effect on the opposite particle. Additional problems related to
decoherence arise when the observer too is modeled as a quantum system.
The
uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator,
Werner Heisenberg.
[1] The uncertainty principle in its standard form actually describes how
precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other.
[8] An alternative version of the uncertainty principle,
[9] more in the spirit of an observer effect,
[10] fully accounts for the disturbance the observer has on a system and the error incurred, although this is not how the term "uncertainty principle" is most commonly used in practice.
Observer effect (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Forgive me if I've mixed up posters. There has been Scotch in my bloodstream recently.