I’m always disappointed by discussions of EPR and Bell’s Theorem.
Basically, everyone just starts from the assumption that Bell’s probabilistic analysis was correct, ignores the detector efficiency and fair sampling loopholes, fails to provide provide real experimental data, and then concludes as EY does:
In conclusion, although Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen presented a picture of the world that was disproven experimentally
My understanding is that due to the detector efficiency and fair sampling loopholes, what EY says here is flat out false. EPR has yet to be disproven experimentally.
As usual, I’m with Jaynes:
But how do you know, asks Jaynes, that you won’t find a way to predict the process tomorrow?
Indeed. The data doesn’t even rule it out yet.
Further, how do you know that there isn’t an erroneous assumption in Bell’s work? Science has always been full of those, and progress is made when erroneous assumptions are identified and abandoned. Should we really be 100% certain that there was no mistaken probabilistic assumptions in his work here at the Bayesian Conspiracy, where we poo poo the frequentist probabilistic assumptions which were standard at the time Bell did his work?
Jaynes has reservations about the probabilistic analysis behind Bell’s Theorem, and they made a fair amount of sense to me.
Jaynes actually also had correspondence with Everett, in 1957, and supposedly even sent him a letter reviewing a short version of Everett’s thesis.
I don’t have a copy of that, but int their other correspondence they seem to be talking more about Jaynes work in probability theory and statistical mechanics. Didn’t see relevant comments on quantum theory, but mainly scanned the docs.
Given Jayne’s interest in the foundations of quantum theory, it seems extremely unlikely to me that he was unaware of MWI. I’ve read most of his papers since around 1980, and can’t recall a mention anywhere. Surely he was aware, and surely he had an opinion. I wish I knew what it was.
I’m always disappointed by discussions of EPR and Bell’s Theorem.
Basically, everyone just starts from the assumption that Bell’s probabilistic analysis was correct, ignores the detector efficiency and fair sampling loopholes, fails to provide provide real experimental data, and then concludes as EY does:
My understanding is that due to the detector efficiency and fair sampling loopholes, what EY says here is flat out false. EPR has yet to be disproven experimentally.
As usual, I’m with Jaynes:
Indeed. The data doesn’t even rule it out yet.
Further, how do you know that there isn’t an erroneous assumption in Bell’s work? Science has always been full of those, and progress is made when erroneous assumptions are identified and abandoned. Should we really be 100% certain that there was no mistaken probabilistic assumptions in his work here at the Bayesian Conspiracy, where we poo poo the frequentist probabilistic assumptions which were standard at the time Bell did his work?
Jaynes has reservations about the probabilistic analysis behind Bell’s Theorem, and they made a fair amount of sense to me.
Jaynes paper on EPR and Bell’s Theorem: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf
Jaynes speculations on quantum theory: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/scattering.by.free.pdf
Jaynes actually also had correspondence with Everett, in 1957, and supposedly even sent him a letter reviewing a short version of Everett’s thesis.
I don’t have a copy of that, but int their other correspondence they seem to be talking more about Jaynes work in probability theory and statistical mechanics. Didn’t see relevant comments on quantum theory, but mainly scanned the docs.
The Collected Works of Everett has some narrative about their interaction: http://books.google.com/books?id=dowpli7i6TgC&pg=PA261&dq=jaynes+everett&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N9CdT9PSIcLOgAf-3vTxDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Hugh Everett marginal notes on page from E. T. Jaynes’ “Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics” http://ucispace.lib.uci.edu/handle/10575/1140
Hugh Everett handwritten draft letter to E.T. Jaynes, 15-May-1957 http://ucispace.lib.uci.edu/handle/10575/1186
Hugh Everett letter to E. T. Jaynes, 11-June-1957 http://ucispace.lib.uci.edu/handle/10575/1124
E.T. Jaynes letter to Hugh Everett, 17-June-1957 http://ucispace.lib.uci.edu/handle/10575/1158
Given Jayne’s interest in the foundations of quantum theory, it seems extremely unlikely to me that he was unaware of MWI. I’ve read most of his papers since around 1980, and can’t recall a mention anywhere. Surely he was aware, and surely he had an opinion. I wish I knew what it was.
I’m surprised this never got a response.