Re: Bell's Inequality

From: Adrian Tymes (
Date: Mon Jun 05 2000 - 20:42:26 MDT

John Clark wrote:
> Adrian Tymes <> Wrote:
> > I was positing that each of the 4 boxes was entangled with each other
> > box in the same way that each of the original two boxes were entangled
> > with each other.
> How can it be that simple? What does "the other box" mean when you have 4 boxes?

"The other box" means each and every other box. That is, for boxes A,
B, C, and D, box A has the same relationship with B as it does with C
and D, depending on their respective settings. But that is what
generates the paradox.

> > * If A and B are set 30 degrees apart, B uses A's sequence, with 1 in 4
> > beats altered.
> Well sure, but how exactly how are you going to make your boxes, how does
> B know how A is set? You're going to need more than a internal hidden variable,
> a local theory will never be able to explain it. And my boxes influence each other
> instantly even if they are ten billion light years apart.

Quantum effects - "spooky action at a distance" - have been
demonstrated. Entangle B with A, or at least the photons going to each,
and there you go.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:31 MDT