NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/physics/22158

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-06 | 1.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!mtnmath!paul
From: [e-mail] (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: A proof that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:09:29 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070
Lines: 20

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
> Using the simple principle that QM generally predicts what classical
> experiments based on Maxwell's equation would indicate, phrased in terms
> of particle probabilities rather than radiation intensities, I predict that
> the time delay between a polarizer changing and the change in proability of
> detecting the particle will be equal to t =  d / c, where d is the distance
> the light travels from the polarizer to the detector.  This assumes the
> polarizer is very thin. [...]

I do not understand how this argument applys to the case I presented.
Maxwell's equations are a local theory. You cannot get a violation of
Bell's inequality using them. If Maxwell's equation's could be used
to predict a delay it could not be any *shorter* then the time it takes
for light to travel from either polarizer to the more distant detector
and this would be in contradiction with quantum mechanics.
Of course there is nothing like a pair of singlet state photons in Maxwell's
theory and that theory cannot applied to the problem of testing Bell's
inequality.

Paul Budnik