kube@cogsci.berkeley.edu (Paul Kube) (05/27/87)
In article <1216@cullvax.UUCP> drw@cullvax.UUCP (Dale Worley) writes: > >The important thing is that most or all hidden variable theories >predict that Bell's inequality will be satisfied, but that the >standard interpretation of QM requires that it will be violated in >certain instances. It seems to me that Worley's description here of the relationship between the standard interpretation of QM, Bell's inequality, and hidden-variable theories is exactly right. >At present, the experimental evidence tends to support the standard >interpretation, although I believe that no one has yet done an >experiment that fully satisfies the requirements for Bell's >inequality, so the jury's actually still out... Whether or not there has been enough experimental disconfirmation of the inequalities to finally decide the issue is, of course, a matter for informed judgment. I wish my judgment were informed enough to say anything definitive about it. I know just enough to see what turns on it: Quantum mechanics has impressive predictive power, but seems to be committed to such a bizarre ontology that it has been preferable to interpret the formalism instrumentally. If the EPR-type disconfirmations of the inequalities hold up, however, some bizarre ontology is the right one, and a major reason for not taking QM seriously goes away. Maybe not quite an empirical answer to a metaphysical question, but a pretty impressive intellectual achievement nevertheless. Isn't there anyone out there who understands the logic of the relevant experiments and is up on the recent literature? Please help us out. --Paul kube@berkeley.edu, ...!ucbvax!kube