= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Open Thread: February 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (738)
What are Bell's inequalities, and why do quantumly-behaving things with deterministic causes have to follow them?
Alicorn, if you're free after dinner tomorrow, I can probably explain this one.
Um... am I missing something or did no one link to, ahem:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/
Thank you, although I find this a little too technical to wrap my brain around at the moment.
The EPR paradox (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox) is a set of experiments that suggest 'spooky action at a distance' because particles appear to share information instantaneously, at a distance, long after an interaction between them.
People applying "common sense" would like to argue that there is some way that the information is being shared -- some hidden variable that collects and shares the information between them.
Bell's Inequality only assumes there there is some such hidden variable operating locally* -- with no specifications of any kind on how it works -- and deduces correlations between particles sharing information that is in contradiction with experiments.
* that is, mechanically rather than 'magically' at a distance
Well, actually everything has to follow them because of Bell's Theorem.
Edit: The second link should be to this explanation, which is somewhat less funny, but actually explains the experiments that violate the theorem. Sorry that I took so long, but it appeared that the server was down when I first tried to fix it, so I went and did other things for half an hour.
There's no good explanation anywhere. :(