December 15, 2018


Ronald Hanson
Delft University of Technology
Mekelweg 5
2628 CD Delft

Dear Ronald Hanson,
I enjoyed your article about Bell’s inequality. (R. Hanson and K. Shalm, “Spooky Action,” Scientific American, vol. 319 no. 6 December 2018 page 59.)  I seem to remember having seen an earlier version that mentioned three possible interpretations of the data, which you had just released, that indicted conclusively that classical physics could not account for the observed reality.  The possibilities were

  1. A faster than light signal going from the first measured of two entangled particles to the untampered one.
  2. The particle pair is not totally real until it has been observed.  That one always makes me cringe.  It sounds like, “And God saw the light that it was good …”  So where is the Big Observation that the Big Bang implies.  The Bible notices it’s missing; why not science?
  3. Everything in the universe is pre-ordained down to the smallest detail, so the parameters of the experiment were established along with the Big Bang, as were the results. 

Actually I am no great believer in free will.  People attribute fertility to human choice, but it simply is not true.  Once kinship matters are settled, the number of children a couple will have is effectively fixed, barring the US blowing them up or some similar mishap.  You will find the proof on the enclosed DVD under the heading Grand Summary Fertility. 

I have no clue why any sane and intelligent human can go over that evidence and not make it their life’s work. Hans movie and Horror without evidence pursue the same line of reasoning: if we don’t start acting rationally about mate choice the whole human race will die out. 

What I imagine will interest you more, is this link about making a universe.

From the standpoint of arithmetic, science recognizes two possible directions of time.  We assume the universe is expanding but it could as well be going the other way.  We like that Big Bang; it’s so scriptural, eh? 

As per Maxwell, the location of an object is a function of its temperature, such that at zero absolute there is no location; it could crop up anywhere.  But they can make negative temperatures and nothing dematerializes locally, so there is more to location than brother Max says.  Given this extra property of matter, the larger universe cannot be predicted from the smaller, although the reverse is possible.  In other words, the future is unknowable while the past is fixed, which resolves any paradox attendant upon Bell’s inequality.  I wish I had figured this out in time to ask him for a response.  He seems to have been a warm-hearted soul who might have communicated even with a burnt out old nobody of a doctor like me.


Linton Herbert MD

Home page.