On 9 January 2014 07:01, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:50 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't understand your point, are you arguing that time is
>>> asymmetric or that it is not? The existence of neutral kaon decay
>>> strengthens the already very strong argument that time is asymmetric, but
>>> only very slightly. Yes a movie of neutral kaon decay would look slightly
>>> different if run forward rather than backward, but not if you looked at the
>>> reversed film in a mirror and you assumed the electrical charges were
>>> reversed. CPT (Charge Parity Time) symmetry still holds true.
>> > I'm arguing that time is symmetric,
> Good luck winning that argument when nearly everything we observe, from
> cosmology to cooking, screams at us that time is NOT symmetric.
Not at the quantum level, where all interactions can occur with equal
probability in either time direction. Or rather almost all. There is one
known example of CPT violation, which has no obvious influence of EPR
> > I don't know why there is so much fuss over Bell's inequality
> I do.
You haven't demonstrated that, by showing that there is some problem with
the temporal symmetry argument.
> > it was actually discovered before Bell died that there's a perfectly
>> reasonable explanation for how his inequality can be violated that retains
>> locality and realism.
If that's the best refutation you can come up with, John Bell and Huw Price
have nothing to fear.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.