On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb <[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. > > Because as I (perhaps mis-) understand it, Price claims that we need to take both past AND future boundary conditions into account to explain EPR with time symmetry. If we can explain it with only a forward in time or backward in time explanation, then we aren't using both.
Or I may be missing the point. That often happens. Now that I think about it, I probably am. I shall go into the garden and eat worms, and while I tuck in maybe you could explain to me whether I jumped to completely the wrong conclusion. -- 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.
