From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Budnik's proposed experiment (was Re: temporally undecided states)
Date: 3 Jan 93 16:50:27 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1993Jan2.230747.3000@cs.wayne.edu>, atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems) writes:
>[...] 
> First, I don't see what the measurement of delays has to do with
> testing Bell's inequality. If the probability of joint detections
> falls outside a certain limit, then Bell's inequality is violated. The
> angular dependence of this probability is relevant. How long it takes
> for the probability to change when the polarizer angle changes isn't.

Bell's inequality is *only* predicted to hold if the relevant events
are space-like separated. The relevant events are the correlated detections
and the experimental manipulations that alter the probability of joint
detections. It is easy to generate results that violate
the mathematical relationship of Bell's inequality using local processes.
Measuring the delays is crucial. Without such a measurement you cannot
claim Bell's inequality is violated.

> Second, if QM plus quantum measurement theory cannot, even in
> principle, predict the distribution of delays your experiment is
> designed to measure, then it is incomplete. Not merely EPR-incomplete,
> but *really* incomplete. That's a very big deal.

This is what I am claiming and I think it is a big deal. The 60 year old
debate about the completeness of quantum mechanics is decided. Einstein
was correct about this all along.

> It seems to me that
> this issue has to be resolved before it makes any sense to try to
> interpret the possible outcomes of your proposed experiment.

That is why a submitted a paper to Physical Review Letters.

> Third, QM does *not* predict that locality is violated. If it fails to
> predict the delays, then it is incomplete. The "only" thing that casts
> doubt on is its usefulness as the basis for a description of nature.

Well QM does not predict these delays it puts constraints on them.
Thus it still predicts that locality is violated. If these delays turn
out to be consistent with locality, as I expect they will be, then QM is
not just incomplete, it is false. However, it is only one aspect of QM
that is tested by measuring these delays: the assumption that the wave
function changes instantaneously when a measurement is made.
This assumption is almost never used to solve practical problems in QM.
Thus the experiments will not call into question anything of practical
significance in physics.

On the other hand, if these delays are consistent with
locality these experiments will open a window on an entirely new class
of physical phenomena. If the wave function does not change instantaneously
then it undergoes some nonlinear structural change that is completely
outside of any existing theory. Understanding the structure of these
changes could be as important as QM itself. Bell's inequality may open
an experimental window on a new class of physical phenomena.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic