[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
psychoceramics: Bell inequality of QM
- To: p--@z--.net
- Subject: psychoceramics: Bell inequality of QM
- From: Mitchell Porter <qix @ desire.apana.org.au>
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 02:06:22 +1000 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <199602051437.OAA--@z--.zikzak.net> from "owner-psychoceramics-digest@zikzak.net" at Feb 5, 96 02:37:22 pm
- Sender: owner-psychoceramics
> From: s--@s--.UCSD.EDU (Steve Lamont)
>
> A Plutonium sez:
> > The Bell Inequality of Quantum Mechanics proves that superdeterminism
> > is the truth. Superdeterminism is teleology, a purpose. You cannot have
> > superdeterminism mixed with any of Darwin evolution.
> > As time goes by, their will be more and more people who are
> > intelligent enough to read and more intelligent to comprehend what the
> > Bell Inequality of QM says about biology. As of now, the vast majority
> > of people in biology are cackling dumbos who hide behind the bandwagon
> > majority. ...
>
> Okay. I'm probably just a cackling dumbo (well, perhaps just a silently
> puzzled dumbo) but does anyone want to enlighten me on the nature of the
> "Bell Inequality of QM," whatever that might be? A brief precis will do,
> since I'm probably not bright enough to fathom much more...
The Bell inequality pertains to the probabilities of photons passing
through polarizers (in its original form, anyway). It says that if
events at a distance are completely uncorrelated, then a certain
inequality concerning the probabilities holds. Quantum mechanics
violates the Bell inequality, experiment agrees with quantum mechanics,
and so it is generally held that "local hidden variables" theories
(without correlation at a distance) have been ruled out.
"Superdeterminism" is a word coined by John Bell (who wrote the paper
which introduced the inequalities) to describe a universe in which every
event necessarily had to turn out the way it does. At one point he
apparently thought this was a point-of-view suggested by the results;
but how it differs from plain old determinism, what he thought the
determining influence might be, and why he thought it illuminating,
I don't know. The concept doesn't show in his last book on the subject,
as far as I know.
Archimedes, on the other hand, knows what the determining influence is:
PU aka ATOM.
--
-mitch
http://desire.apana.org.au/~qix