**Next message:**hal@finney.org: "Re: FTL transmission?"**Previous message:**Zero Powers: "Open House @ JPL"**Maybe in reply to:**John Clark: "Bell's Inequality"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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.

Brian Atkins

Well, the story might be a bit more complicated.

Bellıs inequalities (and related experiments with entangled particles, such

as Aspectıs, etc.) show that local hidden variables theories are wrong and

(classical) quantum mechanics is right. So we must take some ³non-local²

factor into account. But non-local does not mean, necessarily, spooky waves

travelling up & down, faster than light. Non-local mean that if you measure

(here) some observable of the particle p you (at the same time) fix the

observable (there) of the entangled particle q. Actually those entangled

particles have one space, one topology in common.

Bellıs inequalities (and related experiments) do not show that non-local

hidden variables theories are wrong. What are those (many) non-local hidden

variables theories is difficult to say. Somebody thinks that the

experimental apparatus itself takes non-local variables...

Bellıs inequalities (and related experiments) show that Reichenbachıs

³causality² (or ³causal correlation²) does not hold, in the quantum domain.

In classical physics if A and B are events (now), and c was another event

(in the past), so that A and B are both functions of c, and P<A(c)> is the

probability of A, and P<B(c)> is the probability of B, and P<A(c),B(c)> is

the joint probability, we can say that P<A(c),B(c)> = P<A(c)> x P<B(c)>. In

quantum mechanics thatıs not true!

But you can try to recover causality (or causal correlation) changing the

³topology² of those entangled particles dynamics, or changing the

description of that dynamics (Cliffordıs quantum field algebra, etc.), or

even thinking that the observables of those entangled particles are

³pre-setted² from the beginning (in the K-atom), or even changing the

interpretation of quantum mechanics, i.e. from the Copenhagen interpretation

to the Everettıs ³relative states² (avoiding waves packet collapse and

avoiding the observable-apparatus problem) interpretation (as Bell did) to

the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation (as Bell did, also).

As John Clark pointed out ³one thing is certain: whatever the truth is,

it's weird² or (may I say?) ... very subtle.

scerir (Rome)

**Next message:**hal@finney.org: "Re: FTL transmission?"**Previous message:**Zero Powers: "Open House @ JPL"**Maybe in reply to:**John Clark: "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
*