On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift 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 <[email protected]> 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. > > @philipthrift >
This is not about beliefs. The nonlocal aspects of QM are verified with many experiments that have been repeated. The Aspect experiment of the 80s was a cornerstone on a verification of Bell's theorem. This is what nature does, and what nature "IS" is what nature "DOES." 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9ed8c409-4d4d-42c9-914b-69f480714ceb%40googlegroups.com.
