1

Pardon me if this is a naive question.

What is difference between saying space-time is not locally real, and saying it is not real?

The proposal that the universe is not locally real seems to imply that it is is non-locally real. But what does this mean?

There is a good discussion of a related question elsewhere on the forum, but I find the answers confusing. Physicists use words differently from philosophers, and on this topic I find the differences difficult to resolve.This may be because I'm being a bit dense, but I wonder whether the issue can be explained in a more general philosophical way, or at least in a way I can grasp.

PeterJ
  • 231
  • 1
    Well, see, that is complex... – Jon Custer Jan 05 '23 at 15:45
  • Hi PeterJ - I think your question is essentially a duplicate of this one, in the sense that both questions are aimed at understanding the meaning of (local) realism. If you think that your question is not answered by the answers to the other question, you can edit yours to clarify the difference and the community can vote on whether to re-open it. – J. Murray Jan 05 '23 at 18:22

1 Answers1

0

Real, but not locally real, means that one can overcome the Bell argument (that there is nothing real being measured in a quantum measurement) by allowing information to be conveyed faster that the speed of light.

mike stone
  • 52,996