On 1/16/2014 11:00 AM, LizR wrote:
On 17 January 2014 07:56, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 1/16/2014 1:48 AM, LizR wrote:
    On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        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 
            with polarizers and a detector at which you post-select only those
            particles that arrive and form a singlet.  Then you will find that 
            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 
        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 
    If we can explain it with only a forward in time or backward in time 
    then we aren't using both.

    But in the reverse EPR we are in effect using both past and future boundary
    conditions.  At the emitters we set the polarizers - that's the past 
    condition.  At the single detector we post-select only those incoming pairs 
    form a net-zero spin; so that's a future boundary condition.

I must admit I thought you were saying we could do it using ONLY the future boundary conditions. If you use both then you should logically use both in the forwards case, too, so I assume Price's explanation still stands.

You do use both in the forward case, but people kind of slide over the initial condition which is that you produce two particles with net-zero spin. It might seem more symmetric if we did the forward case by creating a lot of pairs and only selecting the net spin-zero pairs to go to the EPR detectors.


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