At 3:31 PM 10/15/4, Keith Nagel wrote: >The logic I do not argue; the assumptions seem questionable >to me. Do they seem so to you? We know one thing; that what >model we choose does have to conform to the Aspect type >experiments and thus spin cannot be as simple as modelling >of a particle revolving in 3 space.
Well, it appears I agreed with this prematurely, at least on the basis that correlation of the hidden variables could get around Bell's assumptions. Even if the hidden variables for the 3 axes can be self-correlated, unlike for the spinning ball model, even by nature's equivalent of a computer program at the time of observation, it appears there is no way to obatain a 50 percent matching overall, like that shown in Table 3 below. In other words, Bell's inequality seems to work even if the spinning ball analogy is thrown out. If the correlation is perfect when Bob and Alice choose the same axis, then the correlation when they do not, i.e. only one match in four, can not be achieved, and vice versa, without knowlege of whether Bob and Alice have chosen the same axis of observation. a b matches - - ------- A D 800/800 A E 200/800 A F 200/800 Total matches 3600 B D 200/800 Total trials 7200 B E 800/800 Match probability 0.5 B F 200/800 C D 200/800 C E 200/800 C F 800/800 Table 3 - Idealized experimental results Another way to look at this is that setting the hidden variables at the time of entanglement requires a priori knowlege of both Alice's and Bob's choice of axis. This is possibly is not so far fetched in the sense that, from the photons perspective, its time of flight is zero. a b matches - - ------- A D 800/800 A E 200/800 A F 200/800 Total matches 3600 B D 200/800 Total trials 7200 B E 800/800 Match probability 0.5 B F 200/800 C D 200/800 C E 200/800 C F 800/800 Table 3 - Idealized experimental results Regards, Horace Heffner
