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