Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> I wouldn't say that it is truly random, but merely that predicting the 
>> outcome of any interaction requires information that is presently not 
>> available.
> 
> You would be incorrect. Google on "Bell's Inequality".
> 
>> For instance, the decay of unstable particles appears to happen 
>> randomly, but at what appears to be a predictable rate for aggregate 
>> amounts of like particles.  What is likely is that the particles decay 
>> when they encounter certain conditions (such as a gradient in the 
>> electric or magnetic potential) that is high enough to overcome the 
>> weak internal cohesiveness of the particle, causing it to come apart. 
> 
> That's the "hidden variable" theory. It has been disproven, multiple 
> times and with hundreds of different experiments. Boggling, isn't it?

	I question the assertion that it's been disproven. I think only a 
certain class of hidden variables have been shown not to exist. (Local 
vs non-local?)

-- 
The next war will determine not what is right, but what is left.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message