Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!guy From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.physics,net.ham-radio,net.followup Subject: Re: faster than light Message-ID: <559@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 2-Jun-83 22:57:51 EDT Article-I.D.: rlgvax.559 Posted: Thu Jun 2 22:57:51 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jun-83 22:01:09 EDT References: <742@tekid.UUCP> Organization: RLG Corp., Reston, VA Lines: 25 No, if I remember correctly, Bell's Theorem merely states that no theory which is: 1) local - i.e., if any thing happening at point A is to affect something at point B, any "signal" must pass through all the intermediate points at a finite speed. 2) realistic - i.e., says that the underlying variables of the theory (position, momentum, field strengths, etc.) must have values independent of the observer. can NOT exactly reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. Therefore, if somebody concocts a local, realistic theory, there must be an experimental test to tell whether it or quantum mechanics is correct. In fact, there have been several such tests; all but one validated quantum mechanics, and the other one is in doubt. This does NOT mean that "nature is not local", i.e. you can send "signals" at infinite speed or via "action at a distance". It merely says "nature is either local or realistic, not both". I'm not familiar with the mechanics of the theorem, so I'm sure I'm leaving out other conditions (i.e., "nature is not local, realistic, and ... all together"). Guy Harris RLG Corporation {seismo,mcnc,we13,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!guy