On 12 February 2014 21:21, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:12 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12 February 2014 17:16, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:45 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't understand what you mean. Bell's inequality isn't an >>>>>> explanation, it's a number which is violated in the measured results of >>>>>> EPR >>>>>> experiments. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You seem to have forgotten my original claim for string theory, that >>>>> using Maldacena's duality it explains the mechanism of EPR. *Bell's >>>>> Inequality does not explain the mechanism. *Seems you trust math more >>>>> than physics or even data as in the other thread. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Shorn of the ad hominem nonsense, that's what I just said. >>>> >>>> What you said was: >>>> >>>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity >>>>> of the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured and more recently >>>>> explained the mechanism behind EPR based on Einstein-Rosen bridges, which >>>>> is more like a retrodiction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So you are, or appear to be, saying that string theory predicts the >>>> viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma based on Maldacena's conjecture, and >>>> that it also explains the EPR mechanism using ERBs. Or at least that is the >>>> most reasonable way to parse of your sentence. >>>> >>> >>> You brought up Bell's Inequality, not me. Happy to see that you now get >>> it. >>> >> >> You mentioned EPR. The point of EPR is that the results violate Bell's >> inequality. >> > > You are beginning to sound like Edgar. > > Except I'm quoting real scientists talking about real science. But anyway, you long ago started sounding like Edgar, so I won't be continuing this conversation. If you work out (or read up on) the relevance of Bell's inequality to EPR you can email me and tell me, otherwise it's pointless discussing this subject with you. -- 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.
