On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Anonymous wrote:
No. Bell's inequality tells us that there are no hidden variables.
It's not that we don't know the value of the measureable prior to
wavefunction collapse...the specific measureable doesn't exist prior to
wavefunction collapse. When Bell formulated the testable inequality circa
1980, and then it was experimentally violated (the inequality, that is,
not the theory behind it), it became accepted within physics that (as
expected) wavefunction collapse determines (right then and there) the
value of observables, forcing the universe to choose, according to the
probabilities. (Of course, this was basically understood from QM's
beginnings, but prior to John Bell's work we couldn't actually test that
this was reality.)
This really gets into my interpretation. I don't need hidden
variables. The crux to me is that the particles are correlated
and we use math to describe the probability of what the correlation is.
Once we measure one particle we know the other one. Before we measure
we don't know anything. That's all. QM tells us what the probability
distribution is for any given measurement, it can't tell us anything
about a particular outcome.
Taking a measurement (whether acidentally or on purpose) forces the
quantum system to choose instantaneously. Einstein understood this
aspect of Quantum Mechanics so well that he and 'P' and 'R' concocted the
EPR gedanken to show that this implies what is effectively action at a
distance...the different pieces of a quantum system, even far removed,
spontaneously 'know' about the other parts. (In fact, I would bet that
Einstein's original complaints about QM's action-at-a-distance may have
been what prompted the reactionary fad of 'well, QM is merely a useful
calculational tool...)
In my model there is no instantaneous choice. It was chosen at
the start. We can not know anything about the correlation until
we measure, then we know everything.
But in the end, as strange and unreasonable as this
action-at-a-distance may be, it's now regularly seen in the laboratory.
(Even wierder are the 'quantum eraser' and other bizarre behaviors).
Yeah, Scientific American has some really nice popular descriptions
of these things. It just doesn't seem weird to me. It seems like
reality. :-)
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
