On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 9:08:58 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 8:43 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > that argument was semi-respectable when weird quantum effects first >>> started to show up around the turn of the 20th century but has not been >>> respected among physicists for more than 50 years. Your explanation is >>> rejected because it just doesn't jive with experimental observations. >>> >> >> > Try being specific, and stop the hydroelectric BS. >> > > A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion > of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space, both > convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic > energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the > second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly > why that is so. And that is no BS. > The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, not a law of physics. There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is that?) to positive energy. AG > > > >> There is simply no doubt about it, Bell's Inequality is violated. >>> >> >> *> What has the ignorance interpretation of superposition before >> measurement has to do with Bell's Inequality?* >> > > I see no point in explaining that to you, again, when you'll just ask the > exact same question, again, assuming you'd even read my response which I > doubt because it sure doesn't look like you have in the past. You have > access to all the world's knowledge at your fingertips through the > Internet, so do your homework and educate yourself. Then we'll talk. > In fact I read your original analysis several times and see no principled route to your conclusion. You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total energy of the universe being exactly zero. You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total energy of what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never referenced dark energy or matter in your original message. Further, about the ignorance interpretation implying hidden variables, I didn't intend that inference. All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea that a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously, and no harm is done since the mathematics of QM remains unchanged. Think about that! But keeping that claim, great harm is done since it unnecessarily mystifies the theory. AG > > -- 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/ec9266e6-238e-4668-9882-914eb320a6bcn%40googlegroups.com.
