On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 7:12:09 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 2:10 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > *Bell's theorem is wrong.* > > > Well yes but that's the point! We know from experiment that Bell's > Inequality is indeed wrong, but to derive it Bell made only 2 assumptions: > > 1)High school algebra and trigonometry are correct > 2) Photons have hidden variables. > > "Hidden variable" means there is something different about a particular > photon that we just don't know about, something equivalent to a lookup > table inside the photon that for one reason or another we are unable to > access but the photon can when it wants to know how to behave. But with > existing technology I can make a real physical machine that violates > Bells's inequality. > So either high school algebra and trigonometry is wrong or the > hidden variable idea is. Even if Quantum Mechanics is someday proven to > be untrue Bell's argument is still valid, in fact his original paper had no > Quantum Mechanics in it; his point was that any successful theory about how > the world works must explain why his inequality is violated, and today we > know for a fact from experiments that it is indeed violated. Nature just > refuses to be sensible and doesn't work the way you'd think it should. > > OK on to making my machine. I have a black box, it has a red light and a > blue light on it, it also has a rotary switch with 6 connections at the 12, > 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 o'clock positions. The red and blue light blink in a > manner that passes all known tests for being completely random, this is > true regardless of what position the rotary switch is in. Such a box could > be made and still be completely deterministic by just pre-computing 6 > different random sequences and recording them as a lookup table in the box. > Now the box would know which light to flash. > > I have another black box. When both boxes have the same setting on their > rotary switch they both produce the same random sequence of light flashes. > This would also be easy to reproduce in a classical physics world, just > record the same 6 random sequences in both boxes. > > The set of boxes has another property, if the switches on the 2 boxes are > set to opposite positions, 12 and 6 o'clock for example, then there is a > total negative correlation; when one flashes red the other box flashes > blue and when one box flashes blue the other flashes red. This just makes > it all the easier to make the boxes because now you only need to > pre-calculate 3 random sequences, then just change every 1 to 0 and every 0 > to 1 to get the other 3 sequences and record all 6 in both boxes. > > The boxes have one more feature that makes things very interesting, if > the rotary switch on a box is one notch different from the setting on the > other box then the sequence of light flashes will on average be different > 1 time in 4. How on Earth could I make the boxes behave like that? Well, > I could change on average one entry in 4 of the 12 o'clock look-up table > (hidden variable) sequence and make that the 2 o'clock table. Then change 1 > in 4 of the 2 o'clock and make that the 4 o'clock, and change 1 in 4 of the > 4 o'clock and make that the 6 o'clock. So now the light flashes on the box > set > at 2 o'clock is different from the box set at 12 o'clock on average by 1 > flash in 4. The box set at 4 o'clock differs from the one set at 12 by 2 > flashes in 4, and the one set at 6 differs from the one set at 12 by 3 > flashes in 4. > > But I said before that boxes with opposite settings should have a 100% > anti-correlation, the flashes on the box set at 12 o'clock should differ > from the box set at 6 o'clock by 4 flashes in 4 NOT 3 flashes in 4. Thus > if the boxes work by hidden variables then when one is set to 12 o'clock > and the other to 2 there MUST be a 2/3 correlation, at 4 a 1/3 correlation, > and of course at 6 no correlation at all. A correlation greater than 2/3, > such as 3/4, for adjacent settings produces paradoxes, at least it would if > you expected everything to work mechanistically because of some > local > hidden variable involved. > > Does this mean it's impossible to make two boxes that have those > specifications? Nope, but it does mean hidden variables can not be involved > and that means something very weird is going on. Actually it would be quite > easy to make a couple of boxes that behave like that; easy to make and easy > to demonstrate that they work, but not easy to understand why they work. > > Photons behave in just this spooky manner, so to make the boxes all you > need is 4 things: > > 1) A glorified light bulb, something that will make two photons of > unspecified but identical polarization moving in opposite directions so you > can send one to each box. An excited calcium atom would do the trick, or > you could turn a green photon into two identical lower energy red photons > with a crystal of potassium dihydrogen phosphate. > > 2) A light detector sensitive enough to observe just one photon. > Incidentally the human eye is not quite good enough to do that but frogs > can, for frogs when light gets very weak it must stop getting dimmer and > appear to flash. > > 3) A polarizing filter, > a good pair of sunglasses would do. > > > 4) Some gears and pulleys so that each time the rotary switch is advanced > one position the filter is rotated by 30 degrees. This is because as I said > before the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it > through a polarizing filter set at X degrees is [COS (x)]^2; so if x = 30 > DEGREES then the value is .75, so the probability any individual 0 degree > photon will make it through that filter is 75%. > > The bottom line of all this is that there can not be something special > about a specific photon, some internal difference, some hidden variable > that determines if it makes it through a filter or not. Thus, assuming high > school algebra and trigonometry are correct, one of two things must be > true: > > 1) > The universe is > not realistic, that is to say nothing exists until it is observed. > > 2) There are no hidden variables, no secret deterministic lookup table > that tells quantum particles how to behave. > > I can't prove it but I have a hunch the moon still exists when I'm not > looking at it so I think the second one is the one that is true. > > John K Clark > > > What about
The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Gerard 't Hooft <https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author&query=Hooft%2C+G+%27> https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d983e78c-9869-4f44-8149-17fdd65f2032%40googlegroups.com.
