On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 2:06:42 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 5:01 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 1:20:08 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:10 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:48:22 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bell's theorem is wrong. If p_hid(X) is the distribution of hidden
>>>> variables, and p_det(D) is the distribution of detector settings, and
>>>> p(X,D) is the joint distribution, then it assumes
>>>>
>>>> p(X,D) = p_hid(X)·p_det(D)
>>>>
>>>> an unwarranted (religious fundamentalist) assumption.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The trouble with your fundamentalist assumption is that it does not work
>>> in real physics. You have only to give a plausible dynamical model of how
>>> this works for the Aspect experiment, say, and we will accept that you have
>>> a point. But you are unable to do this. I would lay long odds on the fact
>>> they you will be unable to do it, even given an infinite amount of time and
>>> computing power.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>>
>> People can go though life believing whatever they want.
>>
>
> I see that you can't do it. Thank you for proving my point.
>
> Bruce
>
I've basically lived my life believing what I want, I think.
I'm not trying to *convince* anyone of anything.
One thing I might try to convince people of:
*Physics is fiction.*
Vic Stenger would have said "Physics is models".
There are always alternative models, and new ones likely coming in the
future.
To find *reality in a model* (to make truth claims in the vocabulary of a
model) is a form of religious fundamentalism.
@philipthrift
--
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/3af9d421-4802-4e98-bfe0-d8ce7e14940e%40googlegroups.com.
