Bell's Inequality

From: John Clark (
Date: Sat Jun 03 2000 - 22:12:59 MDT

Adrian Tymes <> Wrote:

>You mean like which way the photon is polarized?
>It is undetermined, so it is unknown.

I mean more than that. It's not that the photon is set at a certain
angle and we just don't know what it is, the polarization angle does
not exist, or if you prefer, all polarization angles exist until the
instant the photon hits the filter.

>Umm...possible error here. Unless the sequences
>are of infinite length (which can't be precomputed

You're missing the point. I'll be generous, I'll give you infinite sequences with
no argument, it won't help you a bit, you still won't be able to make boxes as
I have described.

>Another possible error: what if you had 4 boxes[...]

You can't just conjure up 4 boxes unless you spell out exactly how
they're entangled. In my original specifications I said things like
"If one box is set at X then the other box [...]", if there are only
2 boxes then the meaning is clear, if there are 4 boxes then it is not clear.
I'm not saying 4 boxes could not be entangled, but the rules describing their
behavior would be much more complicated and I doubt it would bring much
clarity to the experiment.

>By your logic, 12 has 1/4 difference from 2 has 1/4 difference
>from 4 has 1/4 difference from 6, and yet 12 has 4/4, not 3/4,
>difference from 6 at the same time.

Yes but it's not my logic, I don't pretend to understand why things work that
way, as Richard Feynman said, nobody understands quantum mechanics.
However the universe doesn't care if I think any of this makes sense or
not because that's the way things do work, there is absolutely no doubt,
and all you need is a filter that moves in 30 degree increments.

                     John K Clark

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