On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> >>> >>> It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the > details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus > can influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter > creates a pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at > two spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a > constraint on the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that > the setting of one polariser can therefore influence the polarisation > measured in the other branch of the experiment (without any FTL signals / > non-locality). > > This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an > assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of > time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically assume > it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons). >
Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist > > > -- > 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.
