It has been debated whether quantum mechanics and special relativity are compatible and whether there is a preferred Lorentz frame if they are incompatible. Bell’s theorem is an important cornerstone, but it does not give us a definite answer due to the existence of supplementary assumptions or theoretical loopholes; there are unitary quantum theories which evade Bell’s theorem.
In recent years, there has been stimulating discussion about superobservers, which might help settle the important issue of whether unitary quantum theories are compatible with special relativity. This online workshop aims to highlight the existing debates and address the controversies.
Workshop Date: Thursday, August 1, 2019 to Sunday, September 1, 2019
Advisory Board: Lajos Diósi, Arthur Fine, Gordon N. Fleming, Olival Freire Jr., Sheldon Goldstein, Robert B. Griffiths, Hans Halvorson, Richard A. Healey, Basil J. Hiley, Don Howard, Peter J. Lewis, Roger Penrose, and Maximilian Schlosshauer.
Based on the successful previous workshops, this online workshop will be more selforganized. Every participant, after logging in, may create a topic in the workshop forum on his own, which gives a concise introduction to his ideas to be discussed. Then other participants can leave comments and participate in the discussions by text chat in the forum.
All IJQF members are welcome.

Federico Comparsi replied to the topic A REEXAMINATION OF THE EPR ARGUMENT AND BELL'S THEOREM in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
Ok Eric, since the proof that the above listed assumptions lead to predeterminability of outcomes is straightforward, I will be glad to find which of the above assumptions the 2 theories you linked reject. But this will take me some time.
Thanks for the discussion.

Eric G. Cavalcanti replied to the topic A REEXAMINATION OF THE EPR ARGUMENT AND BELL'S THEOREM in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
Hi Federico,
As I said, I have read your paper. But you do not provide a proof of that claim there. I’m saying that if you try to prove it you will find that you will fail, because there is a constructive example of a model that satisfies 1 and 2 above and reproduces quantum correlations (namely quantum causal models). In fact people even study…[Read more]

Federico Comparsi replied to the topic A REEXAMINATION OF THE EPR ARGUMENT AND BELL'S THEOREM in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
Hi Eric, maybe we are not understanding each other, but if you read my paper you will clearly see that the EPRBell’s version that I have reexamined do not need neither “outcome independence” nor “factorization of probabilities”. They only (implicitly) need these two assumptions (implicit in the common scientific way of thinking):
1) If there a…[Read more]

Eric G. Cavalcanti replied to the topic Testing the reality of Wigner’s friend’s experience in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
“could you give me some references where these interpretation account for that?”
This debate has developed in most detail in the case of the Everett interpretation. For example, Deutsch and Hayden, for example, have argued that a notion of locality can be maintained in Everett, and the notion of locality that can be maintained is essentially…[Read more]

Eric G. Cavalcanti replied to the topic A REEXAMINATION OF THE EPR ARGUMENT AND BELL'S THEOREM in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
Hi Federico,
“If you reject this principle (and I think that it would be even worse than the solipsism option) you would invalidate all the scientific knowledge we have. At this stage it would be useless to talk about locality or everything else. The hypothesis that causes are in the past and that correlations need an explanation in my opinion is…[Read more]

Federico Comparsi replied to the topic Testing the reality of Wigner’s friend’s experience in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
“I see no fundamental difficulty of understanding it from the perspective of a theory in which Macroreality is false, like Everett, relational quantum theory, or QBism”
Hi Eric, since I see many difficulties to give an operational notion of speed of influences in physical space without taking S,a,b,A,B as real events occurring in space, could…[Read more]

Federico Comparsi replied to the topic A REEXAMINATION OF THE EPR ARGUMENT AND BELL'S THEOREM in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
# “the measurement outcomes happen to be correlated in the appropriate way, but it is not that one of the outcomes causes the other, or objectively collapses the state of the distant system. They just happen to occur spontaneously, undetermined, but correlated, even if at a distance”
This is not a way out, this is purely nonsense, with all the…[Read more]

Eric G. Cavalcanti replied to the topic Testing the reality of Wigner’s friend’s experience in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
Hi Federico,
“The reality of the spatiotemporal events S, a, b, A, B (S is the process of emission of particles in the source) is a necessary condition to define speed of influences and so locality in physical space. In fact this is an implicit assumption of EPRBell argument/theorem“.
I agree that it is an implicit assumption in the EPR/Bell…[Read more]

Eric G. Cavalcanti replied to the topic A REEXAMINATION OF THE EPR ARGUMENT AND BELL'S THEOREM in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
Hi Federico,
One of the ways around the conclusion of predetermination, even while assuming Macroreality, is the “passion at a distance” resolution à la Shimony: the measurement outcomes happen to be correlated in the appropriate way, but it is not that one of the outcomes causes the other, or objectively collapses the state of the distant…[Read more]

Federico Comparsi replied to the topic A REEXAMINATION OF THE EPR ARGUMENT AND BELL'S THEOREM in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
Hi Eric, thanks for the comment.
#) “Note also that 13 are not the assumptions made by EPR at all”
They are. Maybe the presentation of the argument written by Podolski in 1935 it’s not so clear, so I’m referring actually to the later presentation of the argument in Einstein 1948 (thanks for the implicit reminder, I need to add the refer…[Read more]

Federico Comparsi replied to the topic Testing the reality of Wigner’s friend’s experience in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
Hi Eric, thanks for the reply.
#) “I gather that what you mean is that if Charlie’s observations are real, then they must be (real) hidden variables (for Alice). That may be true, but again, we do not need to make that assumption”
Independently by the fact that you explicitly make that assumption, it’s nevertheless surely true.
#)…[Read more]

Eric G. Cavalcanti replied to the topic A REEXAMINATION OF THE EPR ARGUMENT AND BELL'S THEOREM in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
Hi Federico,
Following up on our previous discussion, now that I’ve read your paper, can you provide a mathematical proof that assumptions 2 and 3 in your paper lead to predetermination of measurement outcomes? This should help clarifying that you actually need an extra assumption apart from Parameter Independence; i.e. you need an assumption…[Read more]

Eric G. Cavalcanti replied to the topic Testing the reality of Wigner’s friend’s experience in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 1 week ago
Hi Federico,
Thanks for the comments.
“Regarding the first part of the quoted sentence, I would like to note that from Alice’s perspective those events observed by Charlie are not more real than hidden variables (or than Bob’s measurement choices and outcomes) until Alice become conscious of them“.
Your comment seems to already deny one of the…[Read more]

Mark Stuckey replied to the topic Mysteries of QM and SR Share a Common Origin: No Preferred Reference Frame in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Here is an 8min video making the point. It’s the last episode in a 10part video series for a general audience explaining the result https://youtu.be/kV3zGgdLJuw “Conclusion: Modern Physics is Comprehensive and Coherent”

Ilja Schmelzer started the topic Bell inequalities based on the logic of plausible reasoning in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 2 weeks ago
In https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.04334 I show that the Bell inequalities follow as well from the logic of plausible reasoning also named the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability theory.
Conceptually, in the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability, it is an extension of logic for the case of plausible reasoning. The axioms are,…[Read more]

Federico Comparsi replied to the topic Testing the reality of Wigner’s friend’s experience in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 2 weeks ago
“However, we emphasise once more that those correspond to observed events, and note that we make no assumption
about hidden variables predetermining all measurement outcomes.”Regarding the first part of the quoted sentence, I would like to note that from Alice’s perspective those events observed by Charlie are not more real than hidden…[Read more]

Charlie Beil started the topic Quantum nonlocality using Aristotle's notion of time in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 2 weeks ago
My paper addressing quantum nonlocality in a spacetime framework, using Aristotle’s notion of time:
Quantum gravity from nonnoetherian spacetime
Comments/criticism very welcome. 

Richard Healey replied to the topic Beyond Bell? in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Thanks, Jerry: that’s interesting.
You say:
I am guessing that your answer is “no” and that the only allowed possibilities are that Alice sees “+1” both times and that Bob sees “1” both times, or visa versa.
For the spacelike separated case you describe, “no” is indeed my answer.
You are right to distinguish superluminal influence from superl…[Read more] 
Jerry Finkelstein replied to the topic Beyond Bell? in the forum 2019 International Workshop: Beyond Bell's theorem 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Hi Richard –
Thank you for your response to my earlier posting. I had understood that
you were agreeing with Shan that Alice would expect 50% of her results to
be “+1”; this clarification eliminates my worry about a contradiction
between the expectations of Alice and Bob. Alice would say that each
individual result has a probability of 50%…[Read more]  Load More