Bell's Theorem. Any One Heard About It? Space-Time relation.

[mbafactory 0]

Have you ever heard about Bells Theorem? I am sure not, It provides very amezing relations between space-time dimensions. I am citing this extract as I found it on net.
a physicist in Switzerland, and he’s saying that reality is nonlocal . . . he’s saying that one event can affect the other, even before the first event decides to happen!

ONCE YOU HAVE faster than light effects happening, not only is this sort of thing possible, it has to happen! Once you exceed the speed of light, you’re going to have events in the future affecting things in the past! Physics guarantees that!

Bell’s Theorem was proved in 1964, and it is still not taught in physics classes, and you don’t hear it on your science news programs. A theorem is a proof, and no one’s found a flaw in this theorem. It’s such a simple proof that a high school kid can understand it . . . so physicists can understand it. They have various ways of trying to ignore it, but it can’t be refuted because it’s so simple. A non local interaction links up one location with another without crossing space, without decay, and without delay. A non local interaction is, in short, unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate.

Anyone having more information about it, please share.

[mm22 0]

Have you ever heard about Bells Theorem? I am sure not, It provides very amezing relations between space-time dimensions. I am citing this extract as I found it on net.a physicist in Switzerland, and he’s saying that reality is nonlocal . . . he’s saying that one event can affect the other, even before the first event decides to happen!

ONCE YOU HAVE faster than light effects happening, not only is this sort of thing possible, it has to happen! Once you exceed the speed of light, you’re going to have events in the future affecting things in the past! Physics guarantees that!

Anyone having more information about it, please share.

Interesting post because it made me aware of this somehow fascinating theorem I had never heard of before. As I read on wikipedia it is surrounded by controversy and many experiments have been setup in order to prove/disprove it but without a definite answer.

I am not sure though I can relate what you are saying (basically things in the future affecting those in the past) to the theorem itself as enunciated on wikipedia ("No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.") but I am certainly not an expert of quantum physics and we know quantum physics does not follow "common-sense" so anything can come out of it.

Are you really reporting everything that physicist says? It'd be nice if you could explain it a bit more into detail

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Reading about this on Wikipedia is not a good area, either.Do either of you happen to have any scientific journals documenting this stuff is true? It would help greatly in understanding the truth behind it.

[truefusion 3]

This reminds me of my thoughts concerning thoughts being a chemical process. If thoughts are mere chemical processes, then the chemical process obviously comes first. If it comes first, then we lack free will. That would mean we don't control these processes; matter would be over mind, not the other way around. So how do these chemical processes function? That implies outside interference. But from what? Theoretically, this can be traced all the way back to the ends of the universe, but that also implies that there is outside interference concerning the universe itself. Would we run into a paradox? Would that in itself be proof of a higher, conscious being? Or is mind really over matter and not the other way around?Concerning Bell's theorem, here's the flaw that it is said no one has ever found for it: just because it's logical doesn't make it true. Simplicity hasn't much to do with it not being able to be disproved. Bell's theorem deals with cause and effect; it's really nothing new. It also concerns predictions. An example of Bell's theorem would be a set of dominoes stacked in a huge line so that all would fall. If the first piece falls, the decision has already been made for all the other pieces to fall, even for the ones that haven't already fallen; though in this case, we would be calling the first event the last domino piece, or a domino piece in the middle, which obviously forms a paradox. So Bell's theorem is a bit flawed, as it appears to imply an infinite regression, at least according to your explanation of it.

[mm22 0]

Reading about this on Wikipedia is not a good area, either.
Do either of you happen to have any scientific journals documenting this stuff is true? It would help greatly in understanding the truth behind it.

We are talking about quantum physics... of course Wikipedia is not the best way to "understand the truth behind it" Most concepts go beyond anyone's reach and the maths required to analyse them surely requires more than an article on a scientific journal to be understood.

Having said so I think Wikipedia is a good way to meter how popular/known a theorem is and how much discussion has been going on around it. That is what I wanted to find out when I checked it out and that is all I have time for right now... although these are very fascinating topics and one could spend years of serious studying in order to grasp a little understanding and, probably, be caught into their net.

On the other hand if we are only interested in hearing an example of how this theorem could impact the "real world" I think what truefusion reports serves the purpose... very interesting indeed!

Concerning Bell's theorem, here's the flaw that it is said no one has ever found for it: just because it's logical doesn't make it true. Simplicity hasn't much to do with it not being able to be disproved. Bell's theorem deals with cause and effect; it's really nothing new. It also concerns predictions. An example of Bell's theorem would be a set of dominoes stacked in a huge line so that all would fall. If the first piece falls, the decision has already been made for all the other pieces to fall, even for the ones that haven't already fallen; though in this case, we would be calling the first event the last domino piece, or a domino piece in the middle, which obviously forms a paradox. So Bell's theorem is a bit flawed, as it appears to imply an infinite regression, at least according to your explanation of it.