On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity >>>> of the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured >>>> >>> >>> Correctly, I assume. >>> >>> >>>> and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on >>>> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction. >>>> >>>>> >>> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials >>> have a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that >>> presumably have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR >>> when you can do it very simply anyway? >>> >> >> And how can it be done very simply? >> >> By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric (for > the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons). >
Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
