Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Ron Ebert wrote:
"Bell's inequality is violated in experiments. This could not happen
assuming locality and hidden variables. And it doesn't help to assume
non-locality and hidden variables, because then the hidden variables become
moot, as potentially any influence anywhere in the universe could affect
the value of the dynamic attributes instant to instant."
But maybe the final answer has not been find. There are another point of
views like:
Pascazio S. 1988, in: "Quantum Mechanics versus Local Realism. The
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, F. Selleri, ed." Plenum, New York,
chapter 13.
And
Santos E. Phys. Rev. A46, 1992, pag. 3646.
So that as DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA wrote"
"That they are not to decide the various descriptions of
history or of economic theory or of philosophy." in Physics is the same.
Without commiting myself to any particluar position with respect to the work
of David Bohm, I observe that in fact it may help immensely to assume
non-locality and hidden variables. One can sleep better knowing that,
without contradicting any experiment, one is free to think of "particles" as
little grains with both instantaneous position and instantaneous momentum.
Why should we believe in locality in the first place?
The terms "particle" and "wave" are certainly loaded and, therefore,
problematic, but I don't think substituting "stuff" helps make matters
much clearer. It seems to me that the primary lesson of quantum physics
is that measurements are everything. We know the world *exclusively*
through measurements and measurements happen *only* when something--even
if "only" our state of awareness--"changes." We are playing at
metaphysics when we interpret the patterns that we see in our measurements
as implying specific underlying physical "things" like particles, waves,
blue whales, or any other kind of "stuff."