On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 16 January 2014 14:11, meekerdb <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.
> 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
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.