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