Recent content by Demystifier

For spin measurements in Bohmian mechanics see https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1280. It is quite general, so there is no derivation of the formula you mention above. But with results of this paper, derivation of this formula, or of violation of Bell/CHSH inequalities, should be straightforward.

Also an analogy could help. Suppose that someone said: "I have heard that statistical mechanics always makes the same predictions as thermodynamics. But I want to see how statistical mechanics explains the working of refrigerator. Is there a paper that explains the working of refrigerator by...

I think you see the problem because you think in black or white terms; either friend can rely on evidence or he cannot. By contrast, I think in shades of gray terms. I cannot absolutely rely on anything (except that I think and therefore exist), the best I can do is to rely with more or less...

But I never absolutely rely on anything. I always doubt, I always admit that there is a possibility that I'm wrong. The only thing I don't doubt is: I think, therefore I am. Yes you have. The FR paper is an example, as well as all the subsequent papers that analyze the FR paper. Are you...

Interesting paper, but probably not what OP wants.

There is probably no reference which explicitly does what you want. Not because it is hard, but because it is trivial. Once you know the general explanation why Bohm's theory always makes the same predictions as standard quantum theory, applying this to the special case of CHSH inequality is...

No, we don't need to assume this to do science. I do not assume this and yet I do science. In fact, I have never seen in the literature than anybody claims that reversal of decoherence is impossible when a measurement is involved, AFAIK there is a consensus that it is very very difficult, but...

I think we are here discussing epistemology, not physics. There are many other possible scenarios by which I cannot trust anything I think I know. One such possibility is that I have schizophrenia, so anything I think I know could be a delusion. How is the possibility of FR scenario different...

Yes we can. We have a lot of evidence that quantum systems can relatively easily be manipulated in the needed way (cat measured and reversed) when they contain a small number of degrees of freedom. We also have evidence that they can be manipulated so when they have a bit more degrees of...

And my point is that, to keep doing science as we are used to, it is not necessary to assume that such scenarios are absolutely impossible. It is sufficient to assume that they are very unlikely. Just as it is very unlikely but not absolutely impossible, for instance, that the 2nd law of...

So what? Someone mean could do various nasty things do deceive scientists, but it doesn't stop scientists from doing their job based on trust that this probably does not happen. For example, maybe all my copies of QM textbooks are non-reliable because there is a world conspiracy against me, so I...

I disagree. Wigner can tell the friend in advance, by classical channels, that he will measure him, so if the friend trusts Wigner that he is not lying, he knows that he will be measured. Of course, it depends on trust, but that may be enough for practical purposes. The issue is how to use QM in...

The point of the FR gedanken experiment is to better understand quantum theory per se, not to predict what will actually happen in an experiment that is practically impossible to perform.

Yes, but this sentence alone does not say how observers should cope with that, i.e. how they should apply QM.

@PeterDonis If I understood you correctly, you are explaining why the FR thought is experiment is very very very difficult to perform in practice. I think everyone agrees with that. But the point is that the experiment should be possible in principle. So if quantum mechanics is a fundamental...