> On 15 Jun 2019, at 09:01, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> 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] > <javascript:>> 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.
With mechanism, we have the right to believe that 2+2=4. And we have to be very cautious with everything else, despite we obviously, and admittedly know more. When I take a plane, I would prefer that the pilot does NOT believe that clouds are elephants. I expect this in all domains. We have the right to be wrong, but not to lie or hide the wrongness. And we have not the right to impose the truth of our hypotheses on others. Bruno > > @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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d2ec84a4-6bfa-4058-8252-f0a49069b4df%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d2ec84a4-6bfa-4058-8252-f0a49069b4df%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/3CB7CB3F-D0FA-42C0-9FC0-71E20994AE27%40ulb.ac.be.
