I’ve just watched Sabine Hossenfelder’s video on the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics, and I *thought* I was following the logic. But after reading more related articles and Q&A on Reddit, I got confused again.
In Sabine’s, she explained that it was basically proved that either one (or both) of the following is true:
a) measurement independence, violation of local causality
b) locally causal, violation of measurement independence
And from other sources, *measurement* is rarely brought up. Most of them instead use the term *realism* and explain that the experiment proves: locality and realism can’t both be true. Which sounds like Sabine’s statement, if I replace measurement independence with realism.
So is it the case? Are the two statements identical? Is there not a case where realism is true, but the measurement isn’t independent?
As a layperson I can’t think of how, since (if I understand correctly) realism means having definite properties even when not being observed. But I feel like there must be a reason people prefer the term realism and not measurement independence, especially when realism has very different meanings outside of physics, while *measurement independence* is such an intuitive idea to grasp by layperson such as me.
So is there a reason why one is used and not the other? Are they not the same thing? What am I missing?
In: Physics
Latest Answers