is there something beyond reality?

[Elizabeth]

...things in our reality can be affected by things not in our reality. This is a violation of "locality". It had long been theorized by quantum mechanics and many tests have been performed over the years to test this theory.

Einstein thought that there were hidden variables that we just could not see. He called these violations of locality, "spooky actions at a distance".

The 'new double-slit experiment' indicates <some> doubt as to absolute causality also.

Einstein actually said that? As his whole proof absolutely refuted Newtonian action-at-a-distance [IE: there isn't any simulaneity, closest to, is the time/action of 'c'], it's odd that he'd use that language.

The origins of this topic is a famous paper by Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky (EPR) in 1935; its title was Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? They considered what Einstein called the "spooky action-at-a-distance" that seems to be part of Quantum Mechanics, and concluded that the theory must be incomplete if not outright wrong. As you probably already know, Einstein never did accept Quantum Mechanics. One of his objections was that "God does not play at dice with the universe." Bohr responded: "Quit telling God

This is from a page on Bell's Theorem. It is a great proof if one cares to read it. It explains how locality is violated and how Bell's theorem proved it was not hidden variables.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html

Love always,
Elizabeth

[The Middle Way]

Thank you in general Elizabeth for posting the convenient link. I am familiar with Bell. My idea was just it's odd to see Albert E revert to language that connotes to what he so eloquently refuted. Actually it was a religious sort of belief that made him nervous about, the crapshoot element, so maybe not SO odd.

thanks again

n

[Ms Bev]

First, you have to be certain what reality actually is.


Bev *poof*