On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 4:14:16 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 2:18:15 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 7/6/2019 4:50 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> n Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:04:18 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> *In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two >>> photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even >>> before the other is created, full quantum correlations were observed **by >>> measuring the density matrix of the two photons, conditioned on the result >>> of the projecting measurement.* >>> >>> A demonstration of retrocausation (retrodependency). >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> NO!! That violates Bell's inequalities and this measurement was done with >> the stats that violate Bell's inequalities. >> >> LC >> >> >> You mean "That would satisfy Bell's inequalities..." don't you? >> >> Brent >> > > I should have said violates Bell's theorem. Bell's theorem is on how QM > violates classical inequalities for probabilities. Any attempt to wire up > some underpinning to QM that is classical would mean quantum systems would > have a hidden variable that would obey the inequalities. > > LC >
*Locality, Independence and the Pro-Liberty Bell* https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9602020 Construed as an argument against hidden variable theories, Bell's Theorem assumes that hidden variables would be independent of future measurement settings. This Independence Assumption (IA) is rarely questioned. Bell considered relaxing it to avoid non-locality, but thought that the resulting view left no room for free will. However, Bell seems to have failed to distinguish two different strategies for giving up IA. One strategy takes for granted the Principle of the Common Cause, which requires that a correlation between hidden variables and measurement settings be explained by a joint correlation with some unknown factor in their common past. The other strategy rejects the Principle of the Common Cause, and argues that the required correlation might be due to the known interaction between the object system and the measuring device in their common future. Bell and most others who have discussed these issues have focussed on the former strategy, but because the two approaches have not been properly distinguished, it has not been well appreciated that there is a quite different way to relax IA. This paper distinguishes the two strategies, and argues that the latter is considerably more appealing than the former. @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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ec4274a7-2a1a-4e67-940f-56c42ec0293d%40googlegroups.com.
