4 ms·

Can someone explain this a bit better? As far as I can tell, the argument is basically "these particle effects should be predictable. I can't predict them, th

Can someone explain this a bit better? As far as I can tell, the argument is basically "these particle effects should be predictable. I can't predict them, therefore they're impossible to predict". That sounds like nonsense to me... And I don't understand the cos equation. The argument seems to assume that the experiment is perfectly controlled, and given that we're still figuring out quantum effects, this seems to be in impossible task (Make sure no outside effects can change the experiment, without knowing all the outside effects). So, to me, all the experiment proves is we don't understand what's going on. My belief: There is no such thing as true randomness or chaos. Only order we don't understand.

pokpokpok 13y ago
I really don't think you read the entire article, but: "As another aside, Bell’s Inequality only proves that the reality assumption and locality (nothing can travel faster then light) can’t both be true. However, locality (and relativity) work perfectly, and there are almost no physicists who are willing to give it up. Except for Bohm, who’s an ass."
analog31 13y ago
Forgive me, but I'm reaching back into my recollection of this subject from when I was a physics student. The presence or absence of true randomness has to be turned into a testable hypothesis, or it's not a scientific question. I think the point of the experiment as described is to find such a test, where randomness, or its absence, produce different outcomes. Whether it achieves that goal is for people smarter than me to figure out.
yk 13y ago
There are two different kinds of randomness [1], one is lack of knowledge, the dice you could calculate or the precise times of keystrokes which could be easily measured. The other is 'true' randomness, that is the claim that no experiment or calculation could predict the value of the random variable. Bells inequality can (sometimes) distinguish between the two. And it turns out that quantum mechanics allows to measure Bells inequality. The result of these experiments is, that there is no straight forward way to introduce 'hidden' variables such that the randomness would just be a lack of knowledge. And it does so in a way that allows for experimental errors. (Sorry for being quite vague, it is quite late here and it would take some time to remind myself of the details.) So if you want to claim that there is no such thing as true randomness, then you are essentially calling for another revolution of physics on a similar scale as the quantum revolution at the start of the last century. It is entirely possible that this happens, but it contradicts the most fundamental theories of physics we have. [1] Actually three, it is not obvious what optimal strategies have to do with either of the definitions above.
tedsanders 13y ago
No, no. This is what makes Bell's Theorem so amazing. It conclusively proves that local hidden variables is impossible (given some simple assumptions). I know you asked for a better explanation, but it's rather long so I won't give one. But the general idea is that you can show that no system of hidden variables can simultaneously satisfy all the experimental results we see.
luma 13y ago
You can choose to believe what you want, but understand that your belief is not in line with the last 100+ years of modern physics.

pokpokpok 13y ago

I really don't think you read the entire article, but: "As another aside, Bell’s Inequality only proves that the reality assumption and locality (nothing can travel faster then light) can’t both be true. However, locality (and relativity) work perfectly, and there are almost no physicists who are willing to give it up. Except for Bohm, who’s an ass."

analog31 13y ago

Forgive me, but I'm reaching back into my recollection of this subject from when I was a physics student. The presence or absence of true randomness has to be turned into a testable hypothesis, or it's not a scientific question. I think the point of the experiment as described is to find such a test, where randomness, or its absence, produce different outcomes. Whether it achieves that goal is for people smarter than me to figure out.

yk 13y ago

There are two different kinds of randomness [1], one is lack of knowledge, the dice you could calculate or the precise times of keystrokes which could be easily measured. The other is 'true' randomness, that is the claim that no experiment or calculation could predict the value of the random variable. Bells inequality can (sometimes) distinguish between the two. And it turns out that quantum mechanics allows to measure Bells inequality. The result of these experiments is, that there is no straight forward way to introduce 'hidden' variables such that the randomness would just be a lack of knowledge. And it does so in a way that allows for experimental errors. (Sorry for being quite vague, it is quite late here and it would take some time to remind myself of the details.) So if you want to claim that there is no such thing as true randomness, then you are essentially calling for another revolution of physics on a similar scale as the quantum revolution at the start of the last century. It is entirely possible that this happens, but it contradicts the most fundamental theories of physics we have. [1] Actually three, it is not obvious what optimal strategies have to do with either of the definitions above.

tedsanders 13y ago

No, no. This is what makes Bell's Theorem so amazing. It conclusively proves that local hidden variables is impossible (given some simple assumptions). I know you asked for a better explanation, but it's rather long so I won't give one. But the general idea is that you can show that no system of hidden variables can simultaneously satisfy all the experimental results we see.

luma 13y ago

You can choose to believe what you want, but understand that your belief is not in line with the last 100+ years of modern physics.