On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 9:30:31 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> I have been around the block on these matters with you. 
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *In your imagination. AG*
>>>
>>
>> You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's 
>> discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not 
>> getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. If 
>> you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics 
>> of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in 
>> greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage 
>> aside.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> I haven't been stuck on anything. As I recall, VIc fell in love with his 
> theory that time reversal explains non locality. Few took his explanation 
> seriously, which had many holes (proof by hand waving as it was, and there 
> are precious few, if any professional physicists who take his proposal 
> seriously. It was in one of his early books IIRC, and no references to it 
> in the literature. And physicists are all over the map on this one, but 
> most find it baffling. I know what you've done. You've just cobbled 
> together some words that make you happy and create the illusion you 
> understand the phenomenon. Now you assume an arrogant position. You can say 
> the pairs are non separable and I wouldn't disagree with the words, but 
> when one side is measured randomly, the issue is how the other side adjusts 
> to keep momentum conserved if it is space-like separated. If the subject 
> was solved, as you falsely claim, there wouldn't be any resort to the MWI 
> to allege explanations. Like I said, you can enjoy your words, and they may 
> fool yourself, but not me.  AG 
>

The idea of time reversed quantum states or hidden variables recovering 
classical physics as an underlying machinery of quantum mechanics is wrong. 
There are exponents plugging this, but they are not winning over the 
physics community much. Wharton is big on this sort of idea and there are 
others, so it is not dead, but I frankly regard it as zombie physics. 
Reversing the time direction of signals or causality for some hidden 
variables does not change the Bell, Kochen-Specker and related results on 
quantum nonlocality.

LC 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to