On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to