- #1
TedS
- 3
- 0
Hi, think of me as an armchair philosopher I suppose, who is very interested in the science of quantum right now.
Bell's theorem led to a finding of nonlocality. I need to back up a step and ask, why. Why is it apparently believed that particles don't have a definite state until they are measured? I can easily accept that we don't know any of their state until we measure them, but why don't they have that same state regardless? I am sort of lucky right now, in that it makes perfect sense to me that entangled particles, when measured, are found to have the same spin, etc. I suppose the right answer to my question will disabuse me of my comfort level :)
It's something to do with those interference patterns I suppose; maybe I just didn't get something. But isn't it possible for a particle to have state, and "simply" not be revealing it? Wouldn't that be a nice finding? (i.e., for those of you who don't really want to believe in nonlocality, nor in many worlds.) How is it disproven?
Thank you in advance for any responses, that can better my understanding.
Bell's theorem led to a finding of nonlocality. I need to back up a step and ask, why. Why is it apparently believed that particles don't have a definite state until they are measured? I can easily accept that we don't know any of their state until we measure them, but why don't they have that same state regardless? I am sort of lucky right now, in that it makes perfect sense to me that entangled particles, when measured, are found to have the same spin, etc. I suppose the right answer to my question will disabuse me of my comfort level :)
It's something to do with those interference patterns I suppose; maybe I just didn't get something. But isn't it possible for a particle to have state, and "simply" not be revealing it? Wouldn't that be a nice finding? (i.e., for those of you who don't really want to believe in nonlocality, nor in many worlds.) How is it disproven?
Thank you in advance for any responses, that can better my understanding.