On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:00 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR. The Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles maintain their connection. > > > -- > 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.
