From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 11:00:29 MDT
hal@finney.org (hal@finney.org) writes:
>Mike's conclusion:
>
>: So where did Bell and Eberhard go wrong? They thought that all theories
>: that reproduced the standard predictions must be non-local. It has been
>: pointed out by both Albert [A] and Cramer [C] (who both support
>: different interpretations of QM) that Bell and Eberhard had implicity
>: assumed that every possible measurement - even if not performed - would
>: have yielded a *single* definite result. This assumption is called
>: contra-factual definiteness or CFD [S]. What Bell and Eberhard really
>: proved was that every quantum theory must either violate locality *or*
>: CFD.
Not exactly. Another alternative is that the theory can deny that the
state of a system is independent of the future measurements.
Huw Price offers a simple explanation in his interesting book Time's Arrow
of a local theory where measurements yield single, definite results. He
rejects the assumption that cause must precede effect, and claims that
the measurement causes the correlations.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | The US Idea Futures Exchange: speculate on http://www.rahul.net/pcm | political,financial issues at http://www.usifex.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:28 MST