The EPR Paradox and The Binary Circumstance
I’m still in the process of researching both the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox (EPR Paradox) as well as Bell’s Theorem in an effort to understand their implications for Objectivism as well as the binary circumstance or the binary nature of existence.
Albert Einstein argued that quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory and that certain hidden variables were required to fully understand quantum reality.
Niels Bohr argued that quantum mechanics was a complete theory and there were no hidden variables.
The ongoing discussion has been called the Bohr-Einstein debates.
Whether the hidden variables exist or not is a binary circumstance.
I plan to expand upon this post as I learn more about the subject. I learned some of the basics in college physics thirty years ago and have read more about it since then. It’s all so mind-boggling that I doubt I could ever fully understand it. It is clear that many Nobel Prize winners are still trying to figure it all out.
Nonetheless, it’s a fascinating subject. More interesting than the election or any other current events to me. I’ve said just about everything I have to say about politics and government and I’m tired of repeating myself. I’m looking for new subjects to think about.
Bell’s Theorem and Locality
Bell’s Theorem says that reality is non-local. [1,230] More specifically it says that “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.” [Wikipedia]
There are challenges to Bell’s Theorem but experiments have supported it so far.
I have a problem with the definition of non-locality. “Spooky action at a distance,” says that measurement of a property of one electron can change another electron instantly at any distance, even millions of miles away. While this action is called non-local, I would call it absolute locality or hyper locality. It seems that you must do away with time and space, as if the two particles in question occupied the same point, even though the experimenters perceive them (and measure them) to be a great distance from each other.
If information is communicated instantly, that means no time can elapse. How can information go from point A to point B? To travel from one point in space to another implies a lapse of time, unless point A and point B occupy the same point in space.
Oddly, when physicists talk of locality, the are talking about one object impacting another even though they may be at some distance. An example would be the sun shining on earth or the earth’s gravity pulling on the moon. These actions are called local even when the action occurs over time and through space. If that’s local, shouldn’t instant communication require and even greater locality, an “absolute” locality?
When a scientist says, “A universe that displays local phenomena built upon a non-local reality is the only sort of world consistent with known facts and Bell’s proof,” [1,230] it calls into question what is really local and what isn’t.
If there is communication, that is connection, which makes it local. There is a relationship where one electron can effect others instantly. To my mind that is not “non-local,” it is absolute locality.
How can an object influence another which is millions of miles away instantly? We’re not just talking about traveling faster than the speed of light, which Einstein said was impossible, we’re talking about not traveling at all because traveling requires time and instant communication by definition can’t require time.
Welcome to the world of Bell’s Theorem and Quantum Mechanics.
Notes
1. Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics, Nick Herbert. New York: Anchor Books (1985)