[extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
scerir
scerir at libero.it
Mon Apr 19 07:03:12 UTC 2004
From: "scerir"
> In any case it is important to stress here that our reality (simulated
> or not) is something "in between". I mean, between perfect determinism
> (and total non-locality) and perfect randomness (and total separability).
Something here is confusing. Our present orthodox quantum mechanical
view is that our reality is something in between an underlying
perfect determinism (and related non-locality) and an underlying
perfect randomness (and related non-separability).
In the (non orthodox) Bohmian mechanics there are hidden variables.
So in Bohmian mechanics, in principle, FTL signalling is allowed,
and quantum correlation (via entanglement) can be used, for FTL
signals, when the probability =/= |psi|^2. Unfortunately our inability
to beat Heisenberg uncertainty relation prevents us from controlling
these hidden variables (essentially they indicate "positions") well
enough to send FTL signals.
It is interesting to say that Bell's (experimentally wrong) local realism
factorizability condition ...
p[A,B,Lambda] (x,y|i,j) = p[A,Lambda] (x|i) p[B,Lambda] (y|j)
which just means that the joint probability of outcomes x and y, for
measurements of observables i and j, in the A and B wings, is equal
to the product of the the separate probabilities. We know that so
many experiments have shown the expression above is far from
reality.
... is equivalent to the conjunction of two (double) independent
conditions ....
Locality condition
p[A,Lambda] (x|i,j) = p[A,Lambda] (x|i)
p[B,Lambda] (y|i,j) = p[B,Lambda] (y|j)
Separability condition
p[A,Lambda] (x|i,j,y) = p[A,Lambda] (x|i,j)
p[B,Lambda] (y|i,j,x) = P[B,Lambda] (y|i,j)
... and that the (experimental) violation of Bell's local realism
factorizability condition is due to the violation of the Separability
condition *alone*. But this Separability condition (alone) is not
sufficient to prove, mathematically, Bell's theorem (Bell's inequalities).
> In a certain sense our reality (simulated or not) is a good, smart choice.
> Diversity, in unity, for evolution.
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list