4

I have been discussing QM with a friend and wanted to explain why holding on to realism means we must accept non-locality.

Essentially I got hung up on explaining Bell's Theorem in simple words.

I have a decent picture in my head about the argument using three axes of spin separated by 120 degrees. However, I don't think this will be easy to explain. More importantly, it feels too abstruse since it uses spin rather than more familiar concepts. Is there a similar argument using locations or other elementary concepts?

Qmechanic
  • 220,844
Jeff Bass
  • 799

1 Answers1

1

There are a couple of different things mentioned in this question: superposition and Bell's theorem.

  1. The most obvious phenomenon that is highly suggestive of superposition (although does not prove it strictly speaking) is the double slit experiment, specifically the appearance of the interference pattern.

  2. For a short and highly accessible at the popular level exposition of Bell's theorem, I recommend this six minute video by Looking Glass Universe: https://youtu.be/z-s3q9wlLag. There she explains the theorem and proves it in another video: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLg-OiIIbfPj2RNY2-tYO2JsR9uw7Rw22z.

ReasonMeThis
  • 1,829