On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:23:36 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:02:51 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:18 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:32 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> >> The dependency of the initial and final states means the
>>>> probabilities are classical and will obey the Bell inequality. This is a
>>>> pretty iron clad result and I am not sure why some people persist in
>>>> thinking they can get around it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *> That would be a useful result because it would put these retrocausal
>>> models to rest permanently. But how do you prove this?*
>>>
>>
>> You prove it the same way physicists prove anything, by performing an
>> experiment. It makes no difference if Quantum Mechanics is someday
>> superseded by a better theory, if probabilities are classical it would be
>> logically impossible to ever violate Bell's inequality even in theory, but
>> in actuality it is quite easy to do so, you do it every time you put on
>> polarizing sunglasses.
>>
>>
>>> *> The retrocausal argument takes the form given by Price in 1996
>>> ('Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, p.246-7). Price notes that all that
>>> you need is that the production of the particle pairs is governed by the
>>> following constraint: "In those directions G and H (if any) in which the
>>> spins are going to be measured, the probability that the particles have
>>> opposite spin is cos^2(alpha/2), where alpha is the angle between G and H."
>>> Price notes that such a condition explicitly violates Bell's independence
>>> assumption.My problem with this has been that such a condition does not
>>> specify any plausible dynamics that could operate in this way.*
>>
>>
>> Since 1809 we've know from experiment that Malus's law always works, that
>> is to say the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it
>> through a polarizing filter set at X degrees is [COS (x)]^2. For example
>> if x = 30 DEGREES then the value is .75; if light is made of photons that
>> translates to the probability any individual photon will make it through
>> the filter is 75%. However if *ANY* local hidden variable theory is true
>> Bell proved that the probability must be less than or equal to 66.666%. But
>> 3/4 is greater than 2/3, so Bell's inequality is violated. So local hidden
>> variables are as dead as a doornail.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
>
> Religious fundamentalism.
>
> @philipthrift
>
This is physics and a range of experiments confirm this. The Bell
inequality, to take this argument further, with polarizers is if one
polarizer is set 30 degrees relative to the other, then think of the
photons as polarized in the way a nail has a direction. 30 degrees is a
third of a right angle, and so if we think of the photons as being like
nails aligned in a certain direction, then at least 1/3rd of these nails
would be deflected away. This is why an upper bound of 2/3rds of the
photons in a classical setting will make it through, or less will by
attenuating effects etc. But the quantum result gives 3/4. This is a
violation of the Bell inequality, and with polarizers it is found in a
"quantization on the large." Of course sensitive experiments work with one
photon at a time, but the same result happens. This is done to insure there
are not some other statistical effect at work between photons.
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d420aa86-0f98-4abb-ab41-13db04992c5c%40googlegroups.com.
