Re: Hidden variables

Omega (
Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:05:56 -0800


> Isn't Bell's inequality derived correctly from QM as we know it?

Yes, a totally correct result of orthodox theory.

> Doesn't it show that (if true) hidden variables don't help unless you
> also relax some other pretty *reasonable* assumptions?

Depends upon your definition of "reasonable". Is the presence of
advanced-action unreasonable? A very impressive set of arguments
can be made that its absence is even more unreasonable.

> Aren't there some experiments (one by Aspick? (sp?)) that pretty
> convincingly demonstrate the inequality?

The name is "Aspect", and I believe some others have worked on this
too, although I don't have any other names. My impression is that
his work is fairly well accepted.

> If so, then isn't von Neumann's mistake pretty much a moot point?

Not at all, it's hard to see how the discovery and recognition of
advanced-action as a fundamental principle of physics could be any-
thing but a major breakthough in our understanding of reality.

Not only is Von Neumann's mistake not moot, it is IMO the biggest
obstacle within existing theory blocking fundamental scientific
progress into the nature of reality.

In the Ecstatic Service of Life -- Omega