On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
You can do that (in fact it may have been done). You have two emitters with
polarizers and a detector at which you post-select only those particles
that arrive
and form a singlet. Then you will find that the correlation counts for
that subset
violates Bell's inequality for polarizer settings of 30, 60, 120deg.
I assume that means Price's (and Bell's) assumption that violations of Bell's inequality
can be explained locally and realistically with time symmetry is definitely wrong...?
?? Why do you conclude that? It's the time-reverse of the EPR that violated BI.
Brent
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
