Boer and Einstein, three decades of big battles, have finally come to an empirical conclusion because of the bell hex.
If you want to learn about the bell, you have to start with Quantities and EPR Fiction.
I want to borrow your gloves.
For example, we have a pair of hands.
We secretly put this handcase in two boxes.
No one knows which box is in which glove.
We’ll leave a box with us at this time.
The other box is on the other side of the planet.
Like Washington, for Iron Man.
Iron Man opened the box and looked.
Huh, that’s left hand.
Then he knew right hand in your case.
Even if it’s a million miles apart, his knowledge of your case is instantaneous.
There’s nothing strange about this — if we look at it in classic thinking.
In the classic thinking, the moment we put gloves in a box, the glove in each box was left or right, was in fact determined.
We’re not sure, just because we don’t know.
But the state of the gloves in the box is certain.
When the case was delivered to Iron Man, he opened it and knew it was left hand.
Well, he knew right hand in the other box immediately.
No strange things have happened in the process, such as the “long-range transient effect”.
Because everything in the middle of it is certain and uncertain in Iron Man’s mind.
And the gloves in the case, they’re always certain.
But if there’s a pair of Quantum Gloves in the boxes, they have a variety of quantum properties like the microworld.
When they’re entangled, it’s not like it’s up there — the gloves in the case are certain, but we don’t know.
Instead, the gloves in the case are in a folding pattern of left and right hands.
At this point, of course, Iron Man didn’t know if he would see his left or his right hand when he opened the case.
However, unlike the classics, at this point not only did Iron Man not know that the gloves in the case were themselves not certain, either left or right, but uncertain.
That would be absurd from our daily experience.
But in quantum mechanics, this “right and right superheavy state” is a fundamental one.
When Iron Man opened the box to observe, he saw his left hand.
At this point, the supermutation of gloves in the case became a certain state of “bong” in the moment of observation.
And in this moment, he knew that the gloves in our case were being explored in the right hand.
That is to say, his observational behavior went over thousands of miles at once, making the gloves in our case shift from superheavy to right-hand.
The certainty and uncertainty here is not only in Iron Man’s head, but in the glove itself.
It changes from “scramble” to “left” or “right.”
So Einstein asked, “How can the moment when you open a box let a glove in another box, a million miles away, make a big difference?
Einstein called it a “sooky action at dissistance” meaning “a ghost-like interaction from a distance.”
Invisible variables and fixability
There’s a fundamental difference between the two gloves.
In the first case, gloves have a certain state of affairs that we do not know.
In the second case, the gloves did not have such a definite state.
Einstein says quantum theory has to be “accumulated.” This is described because quantum theory itself is not an ultimate theory, or because it is “incomplete”.
While we have not yet observed the system, there should be a state of certainty, hidden, unknown to us or not yet known to us.
Quantum theory is only a temporary theory, and there is nothing to do with this hidden state, so we have to use the appearance of the concept of “accumulation.”
So what is this undescribed state of certainty?
Since this state is hidden in a deeper part than quantum theory, Einstein calls it the “hidden variable.”
The word “variant” means that for any state, we need a variable to describe it.
Einstein said that, yes, quantum theory can very well explain many phenomena, predict many, and it is successful.
But it has nothing to do with this hidden state, the hidden variable.
So it’s not exactly the theory.
Physically, called incomplete.
We can use quantum mechanics from a practical point of view.
But we should not be content with quantum theory.
We’re looking for more basic physical theories that can describe hidden variables, that is, hidden variables.
As we can see from the examples above, when we assume that the hidden variables exist — that is, that there is a certain state that we don’t know about — there’s no problem with the process.
But if we think there are no hidden variables, then we’re faced with something like “what happened in Washington, what happened in Beijing in a moment.”
But relativism says that any interaction is defined.
The so-called “demarcation” refers to an event, the effects of which are transmitted out of the air at a certain rate.
For example, you and I called and your voice was turned into a telecom by Mike on the phone.
It is then transmuted in the form of electromagnetic waves.
Then the relay will pass to my base station.
And spread it to my phone.
My cell phone was amplified and converted to sound through audio devices.
Finally let me hear.
This is a step-by-step transmission.
Instead of saying a word from your side, it came to me without passing through any tunnel.
In relativity, the speed of any signal and interaction will not exceed the speed of light.
It’s called territoriality.
Einstein stated that in the first case, realism (i.e., there is a state of certainty that does not depend on observers) and territoriality (there is speed in the transmission of interactions).
According to the classic view, there is no “immediate impact” of the process.
The reason is that the uncertainty of the two gloves is caused only by our ignorance: They all have a certain “left hand” or “right hand” status, but we just don’t know, not that they’re really uncertain.
When we look at the left hand, we get certain information, and we change the probability in the other box.
But this moment changes only our knowledge of gloves, not their state.
In the second case, they all have problems.
Because the condition of the object depends on observation (observation causes a superheavy “closure”) and has a long-range transient effect.
And the folding of two gloves is all they have.
When the left hand collapses, the right hand changes, it changes the quantum.
So, our change in the left hand really changed the right hand in a moment.
But for Einstein, objectivity and territoriality are paramount.
He therefore firmly believed that the quantum theory was incomplete and that there must be a hidden variable theory that satisfied fixation and realism.
EPR False
It’s just an example of image.
Now we’ll change the gloves to particles, and we’ll replace “right and left” with “swing.”
In the history of physics, the effect of this undefinedness is clearly present to us, and this is the EPR fallacy.
In 1935, Einstein, with his extraordinary insight, launched his last fatal blow to quantum mechanics.
This blow exposes the sharpest contradiction of quantum mechanics and the strangest side to physicists.
There is a contradiction between non-definition and realism.
Let’s take a look at this famous EPR fallacy.
Here, for the first time in history, quantum entanglement is clearly present to the world.
EPR three words, a combination of three names, Einstein and his two postdoctoral assistants, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen.
In 1935, three persons published a paper.
The title is “Is Quantum Mechanicals full of physical reality?” Quantum-Mechanic Defense of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
Strong questions have been raised as to the completeness of the quantum theory for a physical description of physics.
It is worth mentioning that the other two in the EPR, although unfortunate in this topic, are not human in the great shadow of Einstein.
The famous contribution of Rosen is to introduce the theory of the wormhole.
And Podolsky, proven to be the Soviet KGB.
In this paper, Einstein defined “realism” as follows:
“If, without any way distilling a system, we can predict with physical (i.e., with probability equilibrity to effectiveness) the value of a physical situation, then there is a physical reality of physical reality to this physical magnitude.” (If we can determine, without disrupting the system, that there is a physical reality and the physical amount.) I’m not sure.
And the “physical mass corresponds to physical reality” is, in Einstein’s view, necessary.
Of course, as we all know, all the core ideas in this paper are from Einstein.
But because Einstein had a bad English level at the time, the article was written by Podolsky.
And Einstein didn’t read it before it was submitted.
Einstein later expressed some dissatisfaction with the presentation of the paper, arguing that it had added to the discussion of irrelevant topics, making the real subject somewhat vague.
Until 1951, Bohm presented his version of EPR fallacy.
He’s using the “Swirl One-two” system, and it’s simple, and it’s one of our most widely known versions.
Here we skip the original EPR, and talk about the Bom version of EPR fallacy.
Spiral is a unique phenomenon of microparticles that does not exist in our macroworld and is difficult to visualize with macro phenomena.
The closest analogy is a spinning little ball.
Although there are significant differences between it and the spin of microparticles, it is now possible to use it for the time being.
A little ball that spins, it can rotate in different directions.
In one direction, for example, it could be a clockwise rotation or a reverse clockwise rotation.
Because the clockwise and the counterclockwise are different in different directions.
So the term is not used in physics to distinguish the direction of rotation.
Instead, a “right hand rule” is used to define the direction of the spin as “up” or “down”.
EPR fallacy is an ideological experiment.
Here, we imagine a static, non-rotating particle suddenly bursting into two identical particles A and B.
Then the two particles left in the opposite direction.
We don’t observe it throughout the process.
Until A runs to the edge of the universe, and B runs to the other end of the universe.
At this point there are two people waiting at both ends, A, Alice, B, Bob.
And they’re all looking at each of these particles in the same direction. What’s the result?
There’s a basic law in physics, called the constant law of angular kinetics.
The law states that the total angular momentum of the isolated system remains unchanged.
Angular motion is a measure of the “intensity” of rotation.
Since the particles did not spin at first, when they split into two particles, the two particles inevitably offset the whole spin.
In other words, “A” and “B” are bound to be the opposite.
This thing can be very weird.
You might think, “It’s simple. Where’s the weirdo?”
And listen to me.
There’s nothing strange about this, of course:
The particles split into two reverse particles, and then the two particles stayed in the same condition as Alice and Bob [1].
All you have to do is take particles as a classic ball.
The opposite result was always observed by two individuals, because the two particles were inherently a reverse spin.
They’ve been the opposite ever since a particle broke up.
Before we look at them, we just don’t know what their respective status is.
But I know that even if I don’t watch, they’re always on the contrary and sure.
But in quantum mechanics’ thinking, the weird thing is.
According to Copenhagen, when we do not observe the spin-off of particles, they do not have a defined spin-off direction, and they have maintained a superheavy pattern of up and down!
It was not until they reached Alice and Bob, respectively, that two people observed it that they collapsed and were given a definite spin direction.
The act of “observation” has created their state of certainty.
When Alice observed A, A went from superheavy collapse to a state, for example, to spin up.
So at the same time, the B at the other end of the universe will immediately shrink from superclave to downward spiral.
In other words, the observation of a particle at one end of the universe immediately led to a state of another at the other end of the universe!
Bell Instinct
Because of this, Einstein and Pol have been arguing for 30 years.
Until John Bell appeared.
Bell is definitely a landmark in physics.
The bell he had proposed served as the basis for an experimental determination of the existence of the field invisibility variable theory.
Before that, people were just philosophical arguments.
Bol Einstein’s great battle, with the bell hex, can finally be judged by the facts.
He had no knowledge of the fact that Bell had died in 1990 and that he had been nominated for the same year because of the bell variant.
The award was subsequently lost because the Nobel Prize was awarded only to the living.
The Nobel Prize was called “No-Bell Nobel Prize.”
The bell-ithering process involves specific theoretical and mathematical aspects.
I’m not going to do that here.
But we can still use an image-like scale.
As the weather cooled, your school students chose to wear sweaters, pants or hats.
Of course, some choose only one, others choose two (e.g. both sweaters and pants) while others choose all three.
At that point, you made a count of your classmates.
You found that the number of people in sweaters but not in pants was m.
There’s a man in his pants without a hat.
There are k people in sweaters without hats.
So what’s the relationship between m, m, k?
Or a little more specific, m+n and k.
We might as well analyze it.
If we assume that their clothing has been identified before we ask them.
So, the number of these classmates can be shown in the figure below:
We use three circles to identify the population in sweaters, in autumn pants and in hats, and the overlap of circles is the choice of both.
The green part of the chart above indicates that the one in the autumn pants is not wearing a hat, the one in the blue is wearing a sweater and the one out of the red line frame is wearing a sweater without a hat.
As we can see clearly, the relationship between m, n, k is:
But if we say, “Quantum wear.”
That is to say, everyone’s sweaters, pants and hats are in a folding and undressed state.
It’s only when we ask him that they become in a certain state of dress, “dress” or “not wear.”
Well, there’s an absolute possibility, when you’re watching a fellow student with a hat.
This observation turns your classmates into wearing a hat or not.
But he also changed his “have he worn his pants?”
– Because the superimposement is “diplomatic” when it is observed, and “diplomatic” is random.
This is an analogy to Bell’s Theorem.
In other words, if we assume that the dress of our fellow students is unobserved and predefined, we will certainly have the above-mentioned variations.
If we find that the above-mentioned heterogeneity has been pushed down, then that assumption does not apply.
In fact, the bell-like look is more or less the same as this example.
Any theory describing the movement of particles, no matter what it looks like, if it has two characteristics:
1) This theory suggests that it has a certain state, whether we observe particles or not; (Previous)
2) According to this theory, the interaction between the two particles is not instantaneous, but is transmitted at a certain speed. (Standing)
Well, it’s bound to satisfy Bell’s heterogeneity.
Bell Experiment.
With the bell formula, we can begin to judge whether Einstein is right or wrong.
Well, the image analogy is over, so let’s see what the real bells look like.
We continue to use as an example the spin of two tangled particles.
Here, unlike previous examples, Alice and Bob no longer choose to measure the cycling in the same direction, but each has three different directions.
They are free to choose between them and measure in this direction.
We have organized these three directions into one of the measured coordinates as follows:
We call these three directions X, Y, Z.
There are 120o between the three directions.
At the same time, the coordinates of Bob and Alice were exactly 180 degrees.
Thus, Bob ‘ s X direction is the opposite of Alice ‘s X direction, and so is YZ ‘s two directions (selecting the opposite coordinate system for a more convenient presentation). So the spin of the particles is inversely related, and we can describe it with the opposite coordinates.
In this way, when they also choose to do a symmetry in X direction, they get exactly the same results (up or down at the same time), as do YZ.
Now, we keep sending tangled particles to Bob and Alice, who randomly choose a particular direction to observe the spin, with the result necessarily being either “up ” or ” down ” .
Let’s see how much the two people get the same, and how much is the opposite.
In the case of fixed-area invisibility variables, the bell variant must be established.
The experimental process is certainly not as simple as the above, but the general rationale is similar.
All that matters is the generation of a large number of tangled particles.
Then the tangled particles were sent to two sufficiently remote places.
On both sides, two measurements were randomly selected and measured.
Each measurement yielded one result.
Finally, we can compare their relevance with a great deal of results.
The logic of this process seems to be clear, but the experiments involve rather complex experimental techniques, with many difficulties.
A range of issues, such as the generation and screening of tangled particles, the maintenance of tangled states (which are extremely vulnerable to destruction), specific programmes of measurement, and how to identify relevance.
Moreover, care must be taken not to have so-called loopholes in the design of the experiment.
From the very beginning of Bell’s experiment, people continue to discover the loophole of the experiment.
There are now three main loopholes.
This is the so-called locality loophole, measuring loophole, and freewill loophole.
I didn’t mean to explain these loopholes in detail, why they became unreliable.
This involves many theoretical calculations and an analysis of the specific process of the experiment.
I’ve got a very detailed explanation from the big guys, and I’m not going to end up with a ferret.
It’s just about what they are.
Locality loophole means that when we measure tangled particles, they may be able to communicate in other ways.
So even if we find the relevance of the measurements, it doesn’t necessarily mean it comes from quantum entanglement.
So, we have to get the particles together long enough to make it impossible for any information to affect the other — even at the speed of light — until the measurements are completed.
Detection loophole refers to efficiency in the measurement process.
If we can’t measure all the particles, then we’re just a part of a large sample.
This part may be biased and may not really represent all particle behaviour.
Such biased data would therefore introduce additional relevance.
Freewill loophole means that when we measure, we must ensure that the measurements on both sides are not relevant.
In other words, nothing makes the choice between measurements biased.
Then we’ll try to be random.
But the normal method of choosing the measure by using random numbers is not working, because we use pseudo-random numbers.
Several of the Nobel Prizes this year have been involved in the design and implementation of these experiments to a greater or lesser extent and have blocked these loopholes.
Thanks to these scholars, now we can basically say that we have completed the Loophole free experiment.
Every experiment, it hit Einstein in the face.
In other words, it is impossible to have any kind of fixed-area invisibility theory.
Either that or Einstein doesn’t think “realism” exists.
That is, there is no objective state of affairs that does not depend on observers;
Or, “dating” doesn’t exist.
In other words, the two particles, which are thousands of miles apart, do not need any transmission channels to synchronize their actions;
Either, neither.
Please note that the Bell experiment does not negate all the hidden variables theory, but only the fixed-area hidden variables theory.
The theory of non-fixed invisibility variables can still live well, for example, in Pom mechanics.
Is Einstein dead?
Unfortunately, the great Einstein passed away when the bells appeared.
Of course, it’s even less possible for him to know the results of the subsequent experiments.
We have no idea how he will respond to that.
But I am convinced that Einstein will say some very shocking comments, and that perhaps another revolution will be triggered.
Einstein is dead, and his ideas have been proven dead?
Not really.
What we call the loophole free is not really clear.
A loophole that can hardly be shut down is free will.
For if we think that our world is a world of decisiveism, we think.
So, all the experimental facilities, the experimenters, and the tangled particles involved in the experiment, we can go up to the source, and finally to the creation of the universe.
Ultimately, they all come from the same event.
They are thus inherently pre-linked.
In other words, our experimental instruments, the particles that have been measured, could have deceived us before the experiment.
Even scientists who are experimenters have been involved in this “coercion” without knowledge.
At the end of the day, the experimenters, the instruments, the particles came from common initial conditions that were connected at the very beginning of the universe.
The Grand Bell experiment in 2016 drew on a large number of volunteer participants, who came from the North and South China Sea, and it was clear that it was not possible to negotiate with each other in advance.
If the experimenter is free to choose the methods of the experiment in full accordance with his/her wishes, the randomness of the methods is guaranteed.
As a result, there is no “pre-sention” space for particles.
Because they don’t know what we’re doing.
But there are still loopholes.
If all of our human beings, together with the particles tested, are the product of the same decision theory.
So, no matter how many people took part in the experiment, people thought that they had “free” and “random” chosen the experiment, but it was fake.
Each participant is a pseudo-random generator, so a seemingly random experimental decision is, in fact, predetermined and neither free nor random.
In other words, all the people and the particles have been conspiring to deceive ourselves.
In other words, we say that the Bell experiment negates the decisive theory, and the hidden premise of this conclusion is that it is not.
This, of course, cannot justify a negative decision.
Because we can’t argue in this loop:
(a) The presumption that the decision theory is not valid (because the experiment requires random measurements, which are clearly contrary to the decision theory);
By (1) we can shut down free loophole and thus get the results of the loophole free experiment, which negates this decision;
Therefore, the decision is not valid.
Thus, this is simply a non-decisive premise to reject the decision doctrine, and it does not refute anything.
In this regard, Bell’s own view is [2]:
“There is a way to avoid the effects of hyper-light speed and the phantom effect of long distances.
But this approach presupposes absolute decisiveism and total loss of free will.
If we assume that the world is super-decisive… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The same applies to the “autonomous decision” that the experiment chooses from a number of tests.
So the difficulties that we’re facing are gone, and there’s no need for super-light-speed effects to inform Particle A exactly what happened to Particle B, because the whole universe, including Particle A, knew what was going to happen. I’m sorry.
At the end of the day, there was a denial of decisiveism simply because of the desire to retain our free will from the roots, in which there was actually no Bell experiment. Bell’s experiment is just putting on the table the contradiction between decisiveism and free will, which means that our free will does not exist. In the course of this experiment, the only factor that can save the decisive theory.
But it is indeed the natural conclusion of the decisive.
Any other ways of reconciling?
And there is.
There is also a multi-world view that has the potential to guarantee both real and territoriality.
Please note that, in the pre-Bel’s equation, we have an implicit precondition, namely:
The world is a single state.
This premise has not been made clear because people think it’s too technical.
Shouldn’t there be only one reality?
But now that we can all deny the reality of a defined territory, why not consider multiple realities?
What if we allow multiple states?
That is to say, when we talk about “clip-up” we recognize that it is in itself a legitimate, realistic physical state, so what?
Please note that when it comes to quantum entanglement, what we were saying before is actually a problem.
In the analogy of the first part at the outset, it is easy to give the impression that the gloves in the two boxes are in a situation of folding on the right and the left.
It’s not that, really, the quantum entanglement, it’s not that the gloves are in one superheavy state, but they’re entangled together.
And that’s the addition to their common state:
One in the left hand, two in the right hand +
Not (box 1, left + right, box 2, left + right)
In other words, the glove in the first section is in it, and the more precise expression should be such a picture:
This distinction is crucial.
Because what we’re talking about here is a whole.
In other words, the two entangled particles can no longer be separated to talk about each other, and they become an inseparable whole.
If we agree with the view of a multi-world, then we can talk separately about two world branches:
Branch 1: Box 1.
Branch 2: Box 1.
When we opened the box, and as the traditional “single world” understood it, we made one of the two branches ‘ supersedings’, one of the identified ones:
However, if we consider the superimposed state itself to be a legitimate physical state.
So when we saw one left hand, we didn’t affect anything in the other box.
We just entered the first branch of the world above.
Based on the same logic, we ourselves are in a state of overlap.
As we looked at the case, we ourselves had an affair with the gloves in the case.
So another copy of me went into another branch of the world.
The two branches of the world are “reversed” in this.
Again, I use an example of this by analogy:
Suppose we have a huge dice in our hands.
Two sides of this dice, one red, one point, the other blue, five.
A very small little ant is crawling on the edge.
This little ant knows the stereo shape of the dice, but when it looks at it, it sees only one side (because it’s too small!
So from its own perspective alone, this dice will be reduced to the “dumping” of the face it sees.
In other words, this dice is folded in: “Blue, Five Point” + (Red, One Point)
Not: (Blue + Red, 1 point + 5 points)
Can you see the difference?
When an ant climbs on the ground, the dice is in the first superheavy state mentioned above.
When it chooses to make an observation, if it sees red, it immediately knows that the number of points in the distance is one.
Although this dice is huge relative to the worm, it’s not far from it.
This ant doesn’t actually affect the farthest points at all.
It just crawled into that dice face.
If we do not recognize the existence of multiple realities, then we can only say that the blue side disappears when the ants climb into the red side.
This is what happens when there’s a long-range ghost.
However, if we leave this hypothesis behind, we think the whole dice is a multi-faceted reality, and this “non-determine” becomes completely unnecessary.
When it sees red, it doesn’t “fad” points, it just chooses one face of the dice.
There’s no non-territoriality: it’s one point or five, it’s already there, just one side of it.
At the same time, another copy of an ant is “crawling” to the blue side of another branch, based on the fact that “ant itself is supermassive.”
Well, analogy over, we go back to quantum entanglement,
If we don’t predeterminate the condition of collapse, we find Alice indissociable from the system.
The world is divided into two branches.
This is the so-called “world branch” of multi-world theory.
So, one copy of Alice “enters” to the “world” of A↑B} and the other “enters” to the “world” of A↓B↓.
She saw the spin, immediately knew that Bob would see the spin, just as the little bug crawled into the red side and immediately knew that there was a point in the remote.
The key to everything is that we abandon the premise of a “single-world scenario” as simple as a single dice scenario.
Vaidman[3] has used GHZ to explain a variant of the bell variant and to argue why it does not mean non-definition in a multiworld.
He said:
“For me, Bell’s heterogeneity is the first reason for accepting a multi-world theory.
…I regret that when I had the privilege of interviewing Bell in 1989, it was not made clear why many worlds are defined. I’m sorry.
Similarly, there’s something in quantum mechanics that’s grotesque, and if we can acknowledge a presumptuous premise — superstitious reality, it suddenly becomes natural.
For example, in the famous Elitzur-Vaidman bomb experiment, if we had identified a “one world”, then we would certainly have a paradox.
Sometimes, even if you don’t interact with a system, you can still get some of its information.
This phenomenon is incomprehensible, but it is very natural in a multi-world theory.
Because you do interact with this system — this interaction takes place in another “world” that you put together.
Of course, his views have also been questioned and there is little to talk about here.
In quantum mechanics, almost every point of view follows a lot of questions, and we can’t go on and on, and it’s going to be endless.
Besides, Rubin from MIT once said, there’s an interesting phrase here.
In the Everett investment these possibilities outcomes and probabilities, general ability from the local-transported information, generality of health-stitutions: namely, whether out of practice.
In broad terms, all probabilistic calculations of the multi-world theory satisfy the territoriality of the transmission of information.
The single-world theory requires an additional message: “What kind of observation does it actually take?” This information is not derived from quantum mechanics itself, but from outside and from some of the games.
This additional information is precisely the source of non-territoriality.
That’s why Dewitt used to say that when he was promoting Everrett’s multiworld theory,
“Einstein would be very happy to see this theory alive. I’m sorry.
References:
One, Alice and Bob are two legends in modern physics, and almost every thought experiment that needs to be looked at will invite them out to do it, so they’re well known in theoretical physics, and their position is the equivalent of “Little Red” and “Little Ming” in your mathematical applications.
If you leave Red and Ming, you can’t go to math class.
Again, without Alice and Bob, scientists wouldn’t think…
Paul C. W. Davies and Julian R. Brown, 1986, The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Quantum Physics, pp. 45-46.
3, arXiv: 1501.02691v1
4 , arXiv:quant-ph/02040424 file number: YXA1B5kx4vNUWK3Z5oMCEGEO
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
