I Bell's Theorem looks like Monty Hall problem in reverse

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott Mayers
  • Start date Start date
Scott Mayers
Messages
10
Reaction score
5
TL;DR Summary
Trying to determine how the 'hidden' factor(s) in the Monty Hall problem compares to the use of Bell's theorem in asserting just the opposite for quantum entanglement.
Hi, I want to discuss what and IF others have noted the comparison of the Monty Hall problem (or identical ones in different form) to Bell's Theorem because I understood that it was used to argue that quantum entanglement exists by showing no hidden factor yet the puzzle requires a hidden factor. ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the Monty Hall problem, there is a correct door and with Monty's inadvertent help you are improving your chance of ending up with that correct choice.

With Bell's inequality, you have two measurement stations and for each particle pair, each station randomly selects one those three possible measurements.

After repeating the Monty Hall experiment 9000 times, you will either end up with 3000 goats and 6000 Cadillacs or 6000 goats and 3000 Cadillacs.

After repeating Bell's experiment 9000 times, you will have:
3000 measurements that were made at the same angle and they all showed the particle pairs with opposite spins (0% the same);
2000 measurements that were made at angles 30 degrees apart with 268 with the same spin (13.4%); and
4000 measurements that were made at angles 15 degrees apart with 136 with the same spin (3.4%).

After Monty carefully examined the results of your Bell experiment, he would deduce:
1) From the 3000 measurements at the same angle, he would discover that the particles in any particle pair had opposite spins;
2) That a 15-degree change in the measurement would result in a 3.4% difference in the measuring result;
3) That two 15-degree changes could not possibly result in more than double that difference, ie 6.8%;
4) That since your 30 degree measurements showed 13.4% (large than 6.8%), you are a chronic cheater and must be banned from winning any goats or Cadillacs.
 
I am already familiar with the logical means to determine this but never heard anyone but myself comparing the paradoxical riddles to the determination process of quantum entanglement not to mention that perhaps Bell got his idea from these very puzzles but doesn't want anyone to think his idea was not so unique. [Appears as the inverse to the puzzle]
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
Back
Top