On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Dan Minette wrote:
[snip explanation of Bell's Theorem and how it deviates from experimental
results]
> In order to construct this table, we used the following.
>
>
> 1) The spin in direction 2 is either up or down. That is to say the
> hidden variables are so arranged that up will be measured or
> down will be measured.
> 2) The distributive law is true:[snip]
> 3) Statistical analysis of finite numbers of random events is
> valid.[snip]
> 4) The empirically confirmed laws of physics are valid
> 5) There are no backwards in time signals.
[I assume 4 and 5 are lumped together below. -msl]
> One of the four assumptions listed above must be removed. If we get rid
> of the distributive law, we remove the foundation of most of
> mathematics. If we assume that statistics are not really valid for
> finite numbers, we eliminate a key area of math. If we assume the
> laws of physics are invalidated in a "hidden manner," we drop one of
> the basic assumptions of science. If we get rid of the first
> assumption, we undermine realism, but not science or math.
>
> Since realism is a philosophy that states that we can know the world
> as it is, it is hard to have a realistic worldview that states that the
> world is other than scientific measurements indicate. Declaring a law of
> physics invalid or postulating signals that could, in principal, go back
> eons in time, both indicate that the world is different from what is
> indicated by scientific experiments. Thus, realism has a difficult time
> explaining quantum mechanics.
What I don't understand is how getting rid of the first assumption doesn't
undermine science, i.e. QM. My (quite possibly erroneous) belief is that
QM stipulates that for each of the three "axes of rotation" (directions 1,
2, 3) a photon must "spin" either up or down. It is from this assumption
of QM that our predicted statistical results are calculated, and it is the
experimental deviation from these predicted results that is the source of
our mystery. In other words, it seems to me on the face of it that to
abandon #1 above implies that QM, as a description of reality, is either
wrong or incomplete.
*****
Actually, maybe we should make sure my (dumbed down) grasp of the gist of
the mystery is sufficiently valid for us to talk coherently to each other.
As I understand it, when you measure--in sufficiently high quantity to get
statistically irrefutable results--the states of entangled photons
that are sufficiently far apart that no light-speed signal could pass
between the two sites of detection in the interval between
measurements, you get results that deviate significantly from the results
predicted by established QM. The size of correlation between the various
directional spins of entangled photons isn't as high as expected.
The discrepancy in this case suggests that somehow information is passing
between entangled photons at FTL speed, a violation of special relativity,
because it implies that the photons' entangled properties are not fixed at
the time that they're still connected.
*****
Assuming I'm on the right track in general, I have three questions:
a. Why is questioning #1 above (which to me appears to mean questioning
an empirically established fact...isn't it?...of QM) better than
questioning #4 or #5?
b. At what point do we pass from saying, "Here's a natural occurance we
don't understand; our theories don't account for it, so we need to refine
our theories," to, "The disagreement of this natural occurance with
established theory undermines the assumption of realism that the world can
be known through science."
c. Precisely which assumption of realism is undermined by QM? As you've
stated it I can't distinguish between "realism" and non-QM science as
such, including Special Relativity.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
