**Next message:**Adrian Tymes: "Re: Bell's Inequality"**Previous message:**Amara Graps: "The Pause that Refreshes (was Re: ART: What Art Is)"**In reply to:**John Clark: "Bell's Inequality"**Next in thread:**Adrian Tymes: "Re: Bell's Inequality"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

John Clark wrote:

*>
*

*> Jonathan Reeves Wrote:
*

*>
*

*> >Bell's Inequality ? I have not heard of this, brief explaination ?
*

*>
*

*> When a photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizing filter there is a
*

*> 50% chance it will make it through. For many years physicists who disliked
*

*> the idea that God played dice with the universe figured there must be a hidden
*

*> variable inside the photon that told it what to do. By "hidden variable" they meant
*

*> something different about that particular photon that we just don't know about.
*

*> They meant something equivalent to a lookup table inside the photon that for
*

*> one reason or another we are unable to access but the photon can when it
*

*> wants to know if it should go through a filter or be stopped by one. We now
*

*> understand that is impossible. In 1964 (but not published until 1967) John Bell
*

*> showed that correlations that work by hidden variables must be less than or equal
*

*> to a certain value, this is called Bell's inequality. In experiment it was found that
*

*> some correlations are actually greater than that value. Quantum Mechanics can
*

*> explain this, classical physics or even classical logic can not.
*

*>
*

*> Even if Quantum Mechanics is someday proven to be untrue Bell's argument is still
*

*> valid, in fact his original paper had no Quantum Mechanics in it; his point was that
*

*> any successful theory about the world must explain why his inequality is violated.
*

*> I'll try to show how to find the inequality, show why it is perfectly logical, and
*

*> demonstrate that nature refuses to be sensible and just doesn't work the way you'd
*

*> think it should.
*

*>
*

snipped

*> The bottom line of all this is that there can not be something special about a specific photon,
*

*> some internal difference, some hidden variable that determines if it makes it through a filter
*

*> or not. Thus the universe is either non-deterministic or non-local, that is, everything influences
*

*> everything else and does so without regard for time or space. One thing is certain,
*

*> whatever the truth is it's weird.
*

*>
*

Well if the universe is really a huge matrix-like simulation at the

quantum level, why can't the photon and polarizing filter just "flip

a coin" when they interact and then proceed from there? That would make

it pretty easy. Thanks for your explanation.

**Next message:**Adrian Tymes: "Re: Bell's Inequality"**Previous message:**Amara Graps: "The Pause that Refreshes (was Re: ART: What Art Is)"**In reply to:**John Clark: "Bell's Inequality"**Next in thread:**Adrian Tymes: "Re: Bell's Inequality"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:26 MDT
*