On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:36:20 Keith Nagel wrote ------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Horace. > Sorry I haven't picked up on this; the last time > I tried to wrap my head around Bell's theorem I got > a bit lost in the nomenclature. Maybe we can hash it > out here in terms less obscure. > My understanding of all of these FTL schemes using > quantum teleportation is that some real physical event > is happening to the remote paired particle when the local > particle is detected. Yet, you are starting with the > condition that the particles be paired. This was Bertelmanns > critique; consider for example a pair of socks. We mix > up the right and left socks, and mail them off to > our two receivers. Bob opens his box, and sees he > has a left sock. Instantly, Marys sock "becomes" a > right sock, by virtue of the fact that according > to QM we can't treat the sock as right or left > until we measure it and thus it exists as a mixture > of the two states. This I see as an artifact of our > method of analysis; the using of statistics to study > a discrete real event. I am lead to understand that > Bells inequalities prove that no hidden variables exist, > but I'm wondering if there is any physical basis for > this? The sorts of experiments you are suggesting > are really to the point, if there is something physical > happening when we collapse the wave function then > some sort of FTL scheme ought to be realizable. I'm > skeptical of this only > * because I know from my meagerstudy of statistics * > * that the first thing that gets thrown away in a * > * statistical analysis is causality, a requirement * > * for any communication scheme. * Interesting, that last comment. Many years ago I realised that research engineers had a tendency to hide their sloppy experimental techniques and designs behind a statistical smoke screen - so I wrote a Note [as one does :-) ] Below is the first page. ================================================================= SUMMARY The role of probability in structural engineering design is analysed in terms of the cybernetic concept of variety. A theoretical model is developed in which chance is viewed as the complement of law, both being seen as a manifestation of a mismatch between objective and subjective variety. The probabilistic approach to design is shown to be essentially antagonistic to the deterministic philosophy which necessarily underlies engineering design and a case is made out for recasting design problems in a deterministic mould wherever possible. A 17/485/1 July 1980 SP/FJG/SP 8/77 ================================================================= Cheers Grimer
