On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > That's because I'm not a physicist. I'm merely showing that an explanation is possible, and hence should be investigated (although it isn't *me*showing this - it's been looked into by various people, from Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory>onwards). It has been considered a satisfactory basis for an explanation of Bell's Inequality by some physicists, including John Bell. -- 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.
