Hello again, goondra
Thank you for your clarifications, which helped me to determine the
proper
level for a reply, and also revealed that the question behind your
question
was "How does google work?".
After further websearching, soulsearching, and interaction with the
google editors I have decided that I shouldn try to do better than I
did so far.
In return, I would ask you to please take the time to rate the
answer.
Your rating is important to help resolve some doubts about
whether your question recieved a proper handling.
First, I quote the editors:
"Hello Hedgie,
Upon reading your clarification, we felt that your tone and approach
to
the customer was unsatisfactory. We would like to see significant
improvement in your customer service skills and your proofreading...."
This part of the answer was regarding the "How google works"
part of your question.
Now the physics part:
The first association which comes to mind, in reference to your
question,
is the Nick Herbert's FLASH device. According to the story, Nick
actualy
got a grant to build the thing, and decided to stop when he was not
able
to buy suffciently efficient detectors. Description of FLASH is here:
6."FLASH--A Superluminal Communicator Based upon a New Type of Quantum
Measurement" Foundations of Physics Vol 12, 1171 (1982) - an item 6
in this bibliography:
http://members.cruzio.com/~quanta/biblio.html
Nick can verify the story regarding the efficiency of detectors as
a limit to actually obtaining some of the non-local effects predicted
by contemorary theory. Here is his home page with e-mail.
http://members.cruzio.com/~quanta/nick.html
New tests of quantum non-locality were proposed
http://www.lkb.ens.fr/recherche/qedcav/french/rydberg/perspectives/belltest.html
However, Spontaneous Emission and Self-Amplified Spontaneous Emission
may impose a fundamental limit on the efficiency of quantum
detectors.
This may forever prevent obtaining the experimental evidence
needed to resolve the conflict between classical and quantum physics
as described here:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409774a0_r.html
Attempts to close the detection or "efficiency" loophole,
are a topic of current research:
www.iisc.ernet.in/pramana/fm2001/QT2.pdf
According to PHILIPPE GRANGIER in Nature 409, 774 - 775 (2001)
(quoted above)
..despite several proposals 3, 4, no conclusive experiment has been
done..
It is possible that we have a situation last encountered some 100
years ago,
when the
ether wind was being measured, always in vain. More and more clever
devices
were built, no effect was never found...
Drawing an historical lesson here, we see that the answer was arrived
at by
deduction. Experimental difficulty pointed to a problem, but problem
was solved by the deduction.
The concensus is that "the final definitive answer to the question of
locality,
the Bell inequalities, and the EPR paradox has not yet been obtained"
http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/thw/projects/eprmain.html
Therefore, the only way to answer your question now is to rely on the
power of deduction.
On that basis, I would answer your question with YES: Current theory,
including the
Bell Theorem derivation, lacks the logical foundation consistent with
the theory of
Relativity. Attempts to overthrow the Bell Theorem have been made,
but none has been
sufficiently convincing so far. This is the "hidden assumption"
interpretation
of QM - analogous to the old "hidden assumption" that Simultaneity is
an
invariant property, which was inherent in pre-relativistic
derivations of the
ether wind :-)
So, in conclusion:
Acording to the current interpretation og the QM theory, the
answer is NO.
Ultimately, however, the current interptretation will be replaced
by a
local realistic theory which will answer this questions with YES.
Of course, the experiment may soon show that this answer is wrong.
The new 'ether wind' may be soon detected.
Please read the google diclaimer
https://answers.google.com/answers/termsofservice.html
which states, among other fine points, the following
Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to
substitute
for informed ... professional advice :-)
Search Terms:
Nick Herbert, FLASH
detection loophole
EPR
Bell Theorem
QI interpretaations
Spontaneous Emission
Detect Efiiciency
I hope this modest attempt to answer a difficult
question
was helpful. Further clarifications is available on request, at no
charge.
If no clarification is needed, kindly consider providing a rating.
hedgie |
